Saga What does the Saga tell us about the best way for Force-using Lightsiders to act & be organized?

I think you're still misunderstanding.

This thread is about ALL Lightside Force-Users in the galaxy... including but not limited to "Jedi." In the past I've debated with others here who said if you make changes to the Jedi, you can no longer call them Jedi. That's why I'm just calling everyone Lightside Force-Users, to prevent another semantic debate like that.

And yes... why do ALL need some form of organization or command-chart if war breaks out? Perhaps 10,000 choose to be part of a centralized organization... and another 10,000 choose not to be part of one. Why would that be wrong? Must all Force-users be "drafted" into one organization in times of war? Why even assume they all must be involved in the war? Why assume "they" as an entity even need a strategy? I think you're stuck in a certain mindset that prevents you from seeing "outside the box" that the PT put you in. Personally, I think the Clone Wars would have turned out if some Force-users fought against sentient-rights-abuses by either side, other Force-users were healers on the battlefield, other Force-users helped coordinate refugee strategies, other Force-users weren't directly involved at all, etc.... and that each of these groups would be better off if they weren't affiliated with each other, so the healers and the refugee-coordinators wouldn't be punished because some other Force-users attacked one or both sides for committing abuses in a few instances.

Being a Force-user is just another trait in the GFFA, like being intelligent. It's like you're arguing "Anyone with an IQ over 150 must be forced to work together under a main command structure, or how else do you expect them to respond it times of war? It would be chaos!" But don't you see how it's kind of a little silly to see why anyone over a 150 IQ (especially if they were in the tens of thousands) should even be thought of as a single group anyways? Why should, say, all brown-eyed people have a command structure for when war breaks out? So, why should all Force-users? Why should, say, all Catholic Americans have a command structure for when war breaks out? So, why should all Force-users?

Why assume any of them would be soldiers? If they did have soldiers... why assume they'd all be part of the same organization? That's what I'm saying... I'd rather they not all be part of the same organization, and have plenty of Force-users completely unaffiliated with any organization. There can be some Force-user-centric organizations, other organizations that just have a few Force-users, and plenty of uninvolved Force-users.

Also, nothing to stop them from getting directly involved in a war if they feel that's how the Force is calling them. Going back to the Clone Wars... maybe 500 decide to directly join the Republic military, so they just enroll in the process as normal soldiers and pilots and commanders... another 500 decide to directly join the Confederacy, so they just enroll in the process as normal soldiers and pilots and commanders. Kind of like how Luke just enrolled in the Rebel Alliance... he was in a separate "Jedi" category in the rebellion, he was just another pilot who also happened to have the Force.
Perhaps there is a Republic-affiliated "Jedi" organization... but maybe there's also a Separatist-affiliated "Jedi" organization... and another "Jedi" organization that's centralized but completely neutral in the war, focused on refugees and healing... and yet another centralized yet neutral "Jedi" organization, but that's focused on sending special forces to fight the abuses of both sides... and plenty of independent "Jedi" who aren't part of an organization, whether because one is a doctor on Coruscant, one is an artist on Alderaan, a few hundred are monks stationed at Jedha, etc.

I think you were misunderstanding before, and still thought of them as being one unified organization, you thought I was saying this one unified organization shouldn't have a clear leader or line of command. I hope now you understand what I'm saying... that I don't think all Force-users need to even be part of one organization. It seems like you were in a logic loop... "the Jedi need to be in an organization, because the Jedi are an organization." Do you see now?

It's ok with being in the minority! It would be no fun if everyone agreed!

Let me give you my perspective on a few of these.

Marriage will lead to pretty much new, probably worse dilemmas (Jedi would choose family over Order/greater good) which will lead to Order's disband.

Not necessarily. It also depends on what kind of order they are in. For example, in Protestant and Orthodox churches, and in the past in Catholic churches, priests were allowed to marry, yet their churches have survived and prospered for nearly 2000 years. Many soldiers and other members of the armed forces are married and/or have kids, yet they continue to function.

Lack of centralization and lifestyle diversity will lead to conflicts inside the Order and overall ineffectiveness.

Why do they all need to be in only one Order? Why do they all need to be in any Order at all?

Lack of affilation with government will put Jedi on the brink of potential extinction in every major Conflict and prevent them from erasing the potential threat/corruption in the very beginning. Jedi Order without the government army is what we saw on the Arena of Geonosis.

Not all Orders of Force-using Lightsiders need to be involved in conflicts, and certainly not every conflict.

More over, examples of Windu, Yoda, Kenobi and couple other people anwering for Anakin's fall just solidify the rules of the Order when it comes to emotionless. Emotions and ego was the reasons why these people and Anakin himself failed

I'd just like to add here that even the PT Jedi don't really preach "no emotion," more like "no emotion can master me, I remain peacefully in control of myself."

 

Any new thoughts?

 

I think they should have an app on their iPhone with a checklist of force powers they can and cannot use.

 

I would prefer there to not be any one single ''Jedi Council" but a bunch of different temples and schools in the same way you have different dojos in Martial Arts, whereby the same core principles are held (in the case of the Jedi this would be what ''The Light Side" entails, no personal power etc.) but with different approaches and philosophies. You may have a temple of monkish celibate Jedi on the one hand and free loving hippy Jedi on the other but neither is ''right'' or ''wrong'' per se.

 

I'd definitely like to see this in future Star Wars, set in the distant past or future.

 

I hope the new High Republic era offers us a look into more diverse, decentralized Jedi with more natural and authentic ideas on romance, family, children.

 

Has anyone changed their mind on what Jedi should be like? While being able to be wandering do-gooders is good, as well as being decentralized, a flip-side that I realized is that they're then not as capable as being advocates of systemic reform. Perhaps that was the original reason why they centralized and affiliated with the Republic? But somewhere along the way they must have stopped being advocates for its reform, and started becoming enforcers of its laws, which is quite a leap. Perhaps the Jedi helped the Republic achieve some kind of idealistic utopian state, so nothing left to advocate for in its reform and instead chose to serve it and enforce its laws, but as it expanded and as time went on it became imbalanced and corrupted, but for some reason the Jedi didn't return to their role of advocates and remained its enforcers? Perhaps the Jedi also one embraced those not Force-wielders, and allowed Jedi to pursue all walks of life, but once they became the enforcers of a stagnant Republic is when the Jedi decided they needed to focus on being of use as a tool by the Republic, and thus the monk-warrior-diplomat became their main/officially-sanctioned career, and non-Force-wielders no longer being included led to schisms that led to the Church of the Force (ex: Lor San Tekka) and Guardians of the Whills (ex: Chirrut). Perhaps the shift from advocate of reform in the Republic to enforcer of Republic law also made the Jedi want to limit anything that would stop them from their service, even if the will of the Force naturally guided them to towards, things like marriage and children and a sense of family?

 

I don't know.

 

I think it just depends on the time period you're talking about. There's a time and place for all ways of life.

 

I'd figure the Jedi would need to have some sort of central leadership, if only for organizational purposes. It'd make sure the Jedi would go where they were needed and get the job done efficiently. ("Jack, you don't need to handle those smugglers near Mytus system; Bob is already there. How about you take the slavers out towards Mantooine?")
I figure they wouldn't have any official covenant with any governing entity, since that might lead to them compromising their commitment. It'd be better if they were independent, called in when the locals couldn't handle the job. (Think the IMF, with lightsabers.)
I figure they'd allow marriage and family, provided a Jedi could handle truly balancing them and their duties. It would help them understand the viewpoint of the regular people they serve, and not get too caught up in the "big picture". Luke showed that you could have attachments of family and friendship, but still resist the Dark Side. It ain't easy, but cops, soldiers, doctors, rescue personnel, and even presidents can do it, so why not Jedi?
I can see certain, for want of a better term, denominations of Jedi. Some could work from the Temple and go out on tasks, returning to base afterwards. But others may choose to stay on one planet and look after its inhabitants, fulfilling their commitment to peace & justice on a smaller scale. Some could be all-around Jedi, while others may specialize in particular skills. But it'd be understood that, in times of major galactic crisis, they'd all get together as one group to face the problem.
And I think there would have to be a certain level of Force-sensitivity and ability present for inclusion in the Order. Given the responsibilities and risks involved, you'd need to have those most proficient available. Those of lesser ability could be guided into service in other areas, though. They wouldn't completely turn someone away just because they scored 97 rather than 100 on the exams.
Well, that's my idea, anyway.

 

I have to disagree with this. Luke is not preserving and passing down the ways of old. He's modifying and expanding them. If he was just following the old ways, then he would've left his friends to suffer and die (or, in Han's case, suffer in limbo) and done nothing to bring his father back from the Dark Side. Assuming he'd manage to survive an unaided fight with Palpatine, I doubt he would've recovered from the guilt of such a callous action. As I've posted elsewhere, I think that such a thing would be far more likely to drive Luke to forever end the Jedi than whatever contrivance TLJ offered.
Rather, Luke's journey was achieving balance. Caring for others and having attachments with friends and family, but not being overwhelmed by them. Seeing the Big Picture, but not if it means overlooking the individual. It wasn't an easy lesson to learn, and he came very close to going over the edge, but it worked in the end. I think that's the lesson he'd pass along to new Jedi, and that would affect how a new Jedi organization would develop.
But, the ST had other ideas...

 

None of this is what is going on with Luke in the originals, though:

Furthermore, Luke saves his father not by being properly attached to him, but because he shows him how to let go of his attachments and act compassionately instead of selfishly:

The fact that Vader loves his son has nothing to do with attachment. Jedi are allowed to love, and in fact they're supposed to love everybody. The relevant thing that happens in Episode VI is that Vader lets go of everything he fears to lose--the Emperor, his own power, his very life--to save his son, inspired by true compassion and not fear of loss:

The Jedi's teachings about attachment are not flawed. It's bog-standard Buddhism. "Attachment" is not synonymous with "compassion." It is in fact the opposite, it is selfishness. "Non-attachment" is synonymous with compassion and unconditional love.

 

With all due respect to George Lucas, Luke acted correctly in my view. He didn't make things worse. In the words of Hawkeye Pierce, he "screwed up in reverse". By confronting Vader early, he got physically and emotionally pummeled. But, since Vader was only interested in Luke, he sent the others away, giving Lando the chance to get Leia, Chewie & Threepio clear. It also gave Luke a desperately needed dose of humility, clued him in on the last bits of Ani's humanity (which Ben & Yoda denied even existed), and showed him that his teachers were hiding a needed truth from him. And this led him to make Han's rescue Priority One (an idea Irvin Kershner insisted on, and Lucas allowed), successfully testing his skills as a planner and warrior. These greatly prepared him for the coming conflict of both body and spirit, and allowed him to show Ani the way to go.
It isn't severing attachments to your friends and family, and leaving them to a terrible fate because you're afraid of what might happen to you. It's severing your connection to yourself, being prepared to give yourself up before giving up on others. And that gives you the strength to deny the Dark Side. The proof is that this is what brings Ani back: his loving attachment for his son (not some vague "love everybody" idea, his compassion for his own son who risked everything) and his denial of himself before he'd deny anyone else.
That's what the Jedi needed. Their fear of the Dark Side led them into embracing the Big Picture so much that they lost all footing in the real world. Caring about your mom is a Dark Side trait? Leaving your friends to die is the best option? That's not "unconditional love", that's being self-centered and ungrateful. And neither Ben nor Yoda show any real compassion for Luke's awful dilemma, just as Yoda showed little for Ani's. And Palpatine exploited that lack of personal empathy, just as he exploited Ani's fears and obsessions.
If Luke had followed his mentors' advice and left Leia, Chewie & Threepio to die, and left Han in that block of stone for years while focusing on killing Vader & Palpatine and then restoring the Republic, would that really have been a happy ending? Do you really see Luke looking back on his choices and saying, "This was the way to go, and I won't mourn or miss them"? Nope, that's not in Luke's character at all. And that's why he won, and that's why he'd teach that idea of balanced attachment to others. Luke follows Jim Kirk's path; if he hadn't tried to rescue his friends, it would've cost him his soul.
Sorry, this is kind-of off-topic, but this is a view I strongly support.

 

But the point is that he didn't act correctly. And when that happened, the consequences of his wrong decisions were made evident. That's part of the story and his growth. He acted on his fears and emotions, failed what he set out to do, almost got himself killed and had to be saved by his friends.

The fact remains that the Jedi and their ways were right, and Luke in the end behaved like a Jedi, as he was trained to. The Jedi and their ways are not meant to be changed, reformed or adulterated in any fashion. They are a constant, because the wisdom it contains and the issues it tackles are universal and timeless.

Anakin doesn't have attachment for Luke. He felt compassion for him, and that's what made Anakin sacrifice himself to save him.

The Jedi don't fear the dark side. They are wary of it and of what it brings, and thus choose to not give into it. They keep it under control. That's wisdom, not fear.

And the Jedi didn't lose any footing in the real world either. Nor did they ever claim that caring about one's mother is a dark side trait. Nor that leaving one's friends to die is the best. That's a complete misinterpretation of what happened in the movies, since that's not what's said in them.

Anakin's attachment and fear (of loss) is a problem, not his care. Caring for someone is different from having an attachment. The Jedi care for others, but they are attached to nobody.

And the fact that fear is a problem is made evident in Anakin's story, when he chooses to act on it. The same happened with Luke. His fear of loss almost made him fall to the dark side. Fortunately, he realized his mistake before it was too late. Anakin didn't.

What awful dilemma? Ben and Yoda do show compassion to Luke by giving him wisdom and the right counsel, not matter how harsh it may seem. That's selflessness. Which is the opposite of the conforting lies that Palpatine gives, that's selfishness.

 

His friends rescued themselves and then had to come save him. Luke should have died. He survived by sheer chance.

If it was meant to be communicated that Luke made the right decision, the film would have shown Luke actively intervening to save his friends and succeeding, instead of showing them saving themselves while Luke gets his ass kicked and then tries to commit suicide. I mean, I'm not a professional storyteller....

 

Vader only had them prisoner to draw in Luke. If Luke hadn't shown up, do you think Vader would've just sat there for months waiting? Would he really have just allowed them to be under house arrest on Bespin? Nope, Vader would've offed them and gone to Plan B. However, Luke's arrival meant they were no longer of use. So, Vader's resultant lack of attention gave Lando the chance to move. Was it perfect? Of course not. Was it what Luke intended? No. Like I said, he screwed up in reverse. He helped his friends escape, but got himself bashed in the process. As for Han, if he'd arrived sooner he might've gotten Han clear, as well. But Han's fate was in other hands, and, oddly, he was better off in carbonite on Tatooine than in Vader's clutches.
Under those conditions, if Luke had triumphantly won against all odds, it would've been a bit too unbelievable and the movie somewhat conventional. (Luke's not Rey, after all...) It certainly would've been less dramatic and emotionally powerful. Instead, Luke learns a hard lesson and grows as a character, but in a way his teachers would've denied him. And, as we saw, it was instrumental in showing him that the old ways of the Jedi needed changing, and in taking that different path, Luke saved the day for his friends, the Alliance and his father.
Besides, if the old Jedi ways were the way to go, why didn't they work for the Order in the PT? You can't blame Palpatine or Ani for everything.

 

Again, if Luke had not gone to Bespin, his friends would've died, he'd never have sensed Ani's remaining goodness, and Han rots away, as he's not important. Luke might've eventually defeated the Empire in the way Ben & Yoda wanted, but it would've cost him his soul. He'd never have recovered from an effective betrayal of the friends to whom he owed so much.
The Jedi feared the Dark Side so much that they condemned all attachments. And yet they were so attached to the Republic that they were ready to overthrow the whole government (both Palpatine and the Senate) and take over, dispensing with their commitment to upholding the law and their own Code. And they didn't consider how the citizens might react to suddenly being ruled by a powerful & mysterious order they never voted for. If that's not fear, even panic, what is?
And Ani had developed an attachment to his son. He truly cared that Luke was going to get killed or enslaved, and there was nothing he could do about it (or so he thought). That goes beyond simple compassion. And he learned Luke's lesson: attachment to others, but not at any cost.
And if being told, "Go to the rescue and the bad guys win, or let your friends die and move on," isn't a dilemma, what is? I'm not saying they should've lied, but they were brutal in their truth. Not even one, "I'm sorry, Luke. You have my sympathies." And this is the same Order that, so far as we know, had no compassion for Ani's dilemmas, either. Even Vulcans aren't that cold.
Basically, the Order's philosophies had developed into a way that left them wide open to both destruction and lack of support from those they were meant to protect. Luke, in being able to maintain a connection to his friends & family while staying clear of the Dark Side, saved the day. If the old ways had been best, the old Order would've overcome all and won. But they didn't. QED.

 

We don't know what would have happened. That was Yoda's whole point. But what the movie chose to show us was Luke's friends rescuing themselves and then having to rescue Luke. There was a reason for that.

The plot was constructed specifically to communicate the fact that Luke was reckless and he failed to do what he set out to do. That's the point of the movie. It's about Luke failing, not succeeding. Thus setting up the third film where he learns from his mistakes in the previous film and finally does succeed. The story makes no sense if Luke is right about everything from the beginning and just needs to do exactly what he did in the previous film, but even more so. There's no arc there.

The old ways of the Jedi worked for them for a thousand years. Their Order only collapsed starting with the thirty year period when Palpatine and Anakin came on the scene. A thousand years vs. thirty years. Clearly it was not the Jedi ways themselves that were the problem.

 

They didn't "rescue themselves" so much as they had Lando rescuing them. He's not one of Luke's friends, at the time.

And there's no way Lando would have been able to do that, had not Vader left them all, to go fight Luke. For that matter, Vader wouldn't have given the order "take them to my ship" in the first place, had not Luke come.

So, Luke coming, indirectly contributes to their escape.

 

You don't know that. You have no idea what would have happened if Luke hadn't come. All we know is that Luke's friends rescued themselves and then had to rescue him after he tried to kill himself in order to avoid becoming an agent of evil, and survived by sheer chance while forcing his friends--who were already well on their way--to risk being killed or re-captured to come back for him. If you're trying to construct a narrative where you want to show that your hero was right and his teachers were wrong, that is not how you go about doing it.

 

We may engage in intelligent extrapolation, though. Given that Palpatine originally wanted Luke dead, we may safely assume he won't allow his chief agent to wait around on Bespin forever for a target who won't arrive. We may also safely assume that Palpatine will not simply allow Leia Organa, the most famous traitor in the galaxy, to be quietly confined on Cloud City. He'll want her head on a pike outside his palace ASAP. Chewie is a runaway slave; his death would be a foregone conclusion. And Threepio was going to be melted down anyway. And, if we assume that Luke would allow them to die, we may also safely assume that he wouldn't rescue Han until the Empire had been fully beaten and the New Republic fully installed.
One thing I'm not ready to assume, though, is that Luke would do any of this and just move on. He's not stoic; he's not cold. Standing by and letting his friends suffer with no possibility of rescue would do either of two things. He'd either go into full bore revenge mode on the Empire and go to the Dark Side anyway, or he'd look back on his inaction with guilt and disgust over what a Jedi Knighthood would demand. Fortunately, Luke did go to his friends aid. It didn't work out like he'd planned, but he made an effort and gained valuable insight (some of which had been purposely hidden from him) that he used later. Better that than stand on his head on Dagobah and try not to think about his dead friends.
In any case, we have a clue as to Luke altering Jedi teachings in "The Mandalorian". When Mando tells Grogu he'd see him again, Luke doesn't correct him. He doesn't say anything about severing all ties between them. Luke respects their bond, and doesn't scold over it.
And I'm not up on all of the EU, but does it say that Jedi teachings were exactly the same for a thousand generations? Yes, the Jedi were there, but did they always teach exactly the same doctrine? And are we to assume that absolutely every Jedi (there must have been several) that had attachments outside the Order turned to evil?

 

Source?

How? What betrayal? He was reckless and was in no position to help them. So much so that he didn't help them and had to be helped instead. He should have finished his training and then go, if necessary.

The Jedi condemn attachments as they should. Attachments is part of selfishness and greed, both of which are contrary to the Jedi way.

And they were not attached to the Republic. They worked with the Republic. Their discussion about "taking over" was during the interim, to uphold (not dispense) the law and keep the peace until the senate elects a new Chancellor.

No, that's not what attachment is and Anakin didn't have any attachment towards Luke. Attachment is not compassion, attachment is not caring for others. Attachment is the inability to let go, it's possessiveness. Anakin felt complete compassion for Luke, so he was able to sacrifice himself to save him.

They were not "brutal" in telling the truth. If that's "brutal", then Luke was "brutal" in his arrogance and recklessness. Luke didn't need a pat on the back. Luke needed to come to his senses instead of being emotional.

Likewise, there was no lack of compassion towards Anakin. Anakin was being tested, and they asked questions and made comments as part of that test. Anakin knew that. The Jedi didn't mistreat him in any way nor was Anakin offended. Anakin was the one who got angry when the Jedi mentioned his fear and attachment (yes, attachment. Not love or compassion, which are not a problem) for his mother, to the point of asking the relevancy of that to the test. And Yoda explained to him the problem of fear and attachment for a Jedi. He didn't scold Anakin. No Jedi did.

You're making up problems that aren't in the movies and misinterpreting core concepts like attachment and compassion. The Order's philosophies stood the test of time and are proven true throughout the movies, not just in relation to Luke and Anakin but other characters as well.

It's only when Luke is able to let go of his attachments and follows his Jedi teachings that he prevails. There's no change, or reformation. There's an acknowledgement of the timeless wisdom and teachings.

 

You can't extrapolate anything with certainty because you're not a fortune-teller. I believe Yoda says something to this effect to Luke.

He gained valuable insight because he failed and should have died. His only options were "become an agent of evil" just like Yoda warned, or die. He chose to die, and was saved only by a judiciously employed deus ex machina. This was intentional. The purpose of a deus ex machina in this kind of storytelling situation is to illustrate the inevitable consequences of an action taken by a character--in this case, the consequence is death--without having to actually kill the character.

The story is that Luke ignored his teachers' advice and he died as a consequence. (Only he didn't really die because the author of the story intervened to save him.) Does that sound like a success to you?

We have no reason to think they weren't the same. If that were an important part of the story of the Jedi's fall, that would have been explained in the films, because it's extremely relevant.

Yes, people constantly misunderstand the actual situation Luke was in and what Ben and Yoda were actually trying to tell him. They weren't saying, "You should just stay here and finish your training and let your friends die because this is more important than their lives." They were saying, "If you go, you may be able to save your friends from death, but you will be defeated by Vader and become an agent of evil, and render worthless everything for which your friends fought and suffered."

Ben and Yoda were wrong in their forecast only inasmuch as Luke had the strength of will and the opportunity to commit suicide, thereby avoiding becoming an agent of evil. They also didn't anticipate that Luke would then be saved from death by a miracle. But the essence of their warnings turned out to be correct. Luke did not survive because he was right and they were wrong. He survived because of a fluke that no one, not even he, could have anticipated and which it would be foolish to expect to happen ever again. Luke didn't triumph, he was spared.

 

I think the PT Jedi took their "letting go" policy to the extreme. Case in point, this scene:

Luminara Unduli, an experienced, exemplary Jedi Master, just immediately gives up on their Padawans, without even having a confirmation they were dead. She did not even express an urge to try and rescue them, whereas Anakin will always try to help his friends, no matter what. Luminara does say the correct thing in the end, that is: "But unlike you, when the time comes, I am prepared to let my student go. Can you say the same?" But the thing is, the time didn't come, and she just gave up preemptively, being prepared to "let go." This is what some people view as a case of extreme detachment, I believe. It is one thing to "mourn them do not, miss them do not, death is a natural part of life, rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force, train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose" when this had actually happened already, but not when you actually can and should do your best, because that hasn't happened yet. It is one thing to accept the natural state of things, that death is real, things do pass, and that you just have to learn to let go, because that's how the things are in this reality. Anakin had a problem with that. Shmi's death was something inevitable, foreshadowed back in TPM, as she was saying to Anakin: "But you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting. It is time for you to let go. Be brave, and don't look back." In AotC, he was literally racing against time, as the twin suns were setting behind him, and when his mother died - he could not accept it, fear transformed into anger and hate, as he slaughtered the village. That's Anakin's flaw, he cannot accept death that had already happened, and he would pledge to never let that happen again. He blamed himself for not being there, and not doing enough. Something Palpatine would exploit to lure Anakin. One could argue, that visions of Padme's death were manufactured by Palpatine, and he played on Anakin's fears, knowing he would act and do anything to prevent it, thus basically enacting a self-fulfilling prophecy. So one must not blame everything on Anakin, because Sidious was also involved, actively grooming and manipulating him. But the Jedi, such as Luminara, were too quick to accept death, just giving up on people preemptively. From my point of view, this is how you should act: you should try your best when you can, but if bad things happened - you should accept it, do not blame yourself and everyone else, like Anakin did, and finally let go, because nothing else can be done. But it often seems as if the Jedi advocate for utter inaction and apathy, which to many people seems inhumane and straight up evil.

The Jedi clearly were somewhat detached from the ordinary people and reality, as they were literally living secluded in the Ivory Tower, above everyone else in a dystopian city of Coruscant, that is based on Metropolis, where it's all good and nice on the surface, while common people and workers suffer in the belly of the city.


Another thing, the Jedi were never meant to become generals and soldiers, that is their another flaw in the PT. They essentially started a war, and an imagery of Grand Master Yoda, a wise Jedi Master, who said "Wars don't make one great" leading battalions of stormtroopers into battle should surely evoke some unsettling feelings.
From the Star Wars Prequels Archives:

This idea of "We are keepers of the peace, not soldiers" is everywhere throughout The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and The Clone Wars. And while yes, Yoda acknowledged that it was not a victory and that the war has begun, nonetheless, they were the ones who actively started it.
One could interpret that as the Jedi themselves not being able to "let go" of Obi-Wan, Anakin and Padme, who were trapped on Geonosis, awaiting their execution. So the Jedi chose to rescue them, invading a planet, and starting a Galactic War. And yes, while Sidious was pulling the strings and playing both sides for a while now, the Jedi were the ones who started the war by doing everything aforementioned.
By choosing side, Jedi also became selective in the suffering of others. They were willing to accept slavery, death, war casualties of some things, but not the others, thus inadvertently giving "strategic" priorities and becoming unwillingly attached to some things, but not the others.
Not to mention, that something surely must have been wrong with them, as they failed to sense Sidious for such a long period of time, they failed to stop him, and they played right into his hands. In TPM, they did not even believe the Sith could have possibly returned, and even adding something like: "This could not have happened without us knowing." But it did happen, and you did not know about that. Their connection to the Force has diminished, and they clearly were out of touch.
So I don't think it is correct to say, that the Jedi are 100% always correct and never wrong about anything, and it was all Sheev doing evil things. Even Lucas himself said, that they are fallible, and they are not super people.

 

@Alexrd and @The_Phantom_Calamari
May as well respond to both of you.
First, if you see a sky with dark clouds and hear distant thunder, you don't need to be a fortune teller to know a storm is coming. Thus, as I wrote, we may extrapolate, based on what we've seen and what we may reasonably surmise. Thus, we may doubt that Vader would've stayed on Bespin indefinitely, waiting for Luke to arrive, while the Empire is at war with a growing Rebellion, the Death Star II project is underway, the population must be kept under control, and bureaucratic hassles pile up. Palpatine is not going to let his chief agent do such a thing when he's needed elsewhere. We may also surmise that Leia and Chewie, two major enemies of the Empire, are not going to be allowed to live, nor would Threepio be spared from the furnaces. Neither Vader nor Palpatine are merciful figures.
Next, as I wrote, can we really expect Luke to not come to his friends' aid and just move on like nothing happened? Jake Skywalker, perhaps, but not Luke. He's been characterized as someone unwilling to leave his friends. (Hey, he even tried to rescue Dack, who sure looked dead to the audience.) If he had done such a thing (and he wouldn't), that would've caused far greater damage than what we saw. In particular, since we heard "mourn them not, miss them not" was Jedi custom, all that unexpressed grief has to go somewhere. Based on normal human behaviors, we may easily see Luke express it in either outward anger ("I see an Imperial insignia, I kill the man wearing it!") or inward anger ("I left them to die. I turned my back on them. What kind of monster am I? I didn't even try to help!"). Luke's not so stoic that he can turn off his emotions.
Next, Kenobi & Yoda were, indeed, brutal in their expression. Their tone clearly expressed, "Let them die, focus on the job, and that's all." Jedi training may be tough, but it isn't "Full Metal Jacket". I would hope a Jedi Master could express sympathy for a trainee's bad situation. And if being told by your mentor that you must desert your friends in their time of need and not even think of them isn't a bad situation, what is? A simple expression of sympathy would just be the decent thing to do. ("A terrible burden, it is. Wish it on you, I wouldn't. Their fate, I deeply regret.") Qui-Gon did that, certainly. And Kenobi is capable of it ("Anakin is the father, isn't he? I'm so sorry."), so why not on Dagobah, when it was needed?
Next, I didn't write that Luke triumphed. I wrote he screwed up in reverse. He helped his friends escape, but not in the way he intended. Yes, he lost. In fact, he got schmered. But, it was to his benefit. He learned a vital truth that had been hidden from him (Vader is Ani, Ani is his father), gained a valuable insight that he needed for later (Ani's not fully gone, he still has some humanity left), and got a whacking great dose of humility. And, in discovering that the truth of the matter in that way, he was better equipped for later. Given that his actions led to Ani's repentance and help at the crisis point on DS II, I'd say Luke's approach was justified. Now Luke knew who was really behind that mask, and that later led to Ani knowing his son was a good man who'd risk all for his friends and family.
Re; the Order's own panic, even Palpatine was surprised at how soon they decided to just overthrow him and commit treason. Consider this: how would you feel if the Director of the F.B.I. announced that, without charge or warrant, he had arrested the President & Vice-President for treason, had disbanded both houses of Congress, suspended the Constitution, and decided to run things personally "for the duration of the emergency"? Not really good, I'd say. I doubt the Republic had laws in place allowing the Jedi to just take over whenever they felt like it. It was a hasty act of fear, and didn't even consider how the populace would react to such a blatant violation of the law. And yet the Jedi had a big problem with Ani worrying about his mother and his wife.
As noted, Irvin Kershner felt that having Luke decide not to try and rescue Han would make him look like an ungrateful so-and-so to the audience. And he was right. Instead, with that script change to make saving Han Luke's top priority, we see Luke as a true friend, who would shed his attachment to himself and his own life before he'd leave a friend to a terrible fate. That's why we love him. To quote Harry Knowles' review of "Revenge of the Sith" (editing the language somewhat):

This is why ultimately Luke Skywalker kicks #$%. Because he doesn’t have all this dogmatic @#$%&%$. Because he’s got a buddy like Han Solo that’d be willing to bust #$% across the galaxy to save his #$%. Somebody that has his back. FRIENDS! Because when the Sith hits the fan, it’s the love of your friends that’ll help you push through and kick #$%. Because Luke believes in twin sunsets, the good guys and saving his dad.

And I'd say that's the message Luke would give to new Jedi. Attachments are not bad, in and of themselves. Don't let them overwhelm you, but don't reject them. Friends and family are not bad things to have, so long as you can balance them with your duties. And always stick by your friends, because they'd do the same for you.

Okay, I've gone way past the original idea of this thread, and am now furiously beating a dead horse. I've said my piece, so now I'll move back and let somebody else talk. Your turn...