12 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I'm not trolling you guys. I'm just coming at this from a radically different paradigm than it seems many others are. I don't think you guys are trolling me though I'd feel much better about this conversation if I thought you were.

I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

Please explain how the Jedi code, which paints emotions, passion, and chaos (which I would argue is a critical component to most emotions) as negatives, equates to: They can be emotional, they just have to be careful about it.

17 minutes ago, benbaxter said:

I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

Please explain how the Jedi code, which paints emotions, passion, and chaos (which I would argue is a critical component to most emotions) as negatives, equates to: They can be emotional, they just have to be careful about it.

I explain it as you're looking at The Jedi Code as literal instructions and not as guiding philosophy in navigating the world. Because as you say you can't shut down your emotions but you can master them. This is a subtle but tremendously important distinction. You'll have to forgive me for being unable to make it clear to you.

Do you think the code is saying, "Be an emotionless robot?" Is that what you're taking out of "There is no emotion there is peace?"

16 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I explain it as you're looking at The Jedi Code as literal instructions and not as guiding philosophy in navigating the world. Because as you say you can't shut down your emotions but you can master them. This is a subtle but tremendously important distinction. You'll have to forgive me for being unable to make it clear to you.

Do you think the code is saying, "Be an emotionless robot?" Is that what you're taking out of "There is no emotion there is peace?"

To answer your question on a fundamental level: Yes.

Though it could be argued that on some level they have compassion for humankind as a whole, they make it pretty clear that Jedi aren't supposed to have personal feelings toward other humans.

The rejection of emotion and passion as a critical component of the human experience is, IMO, the reason so many Jedi 'fall' to the darkside. If they don't want their members to experience/feel what it is to be human, that pretty much leaves emotionless robots.

Bottom line: Jedi tell people that they are only allowed to act on a limited number of impersonal emotions, which doesn't leave much room for them to be human.

edited for clarity.

4 minutes ago, benbaxter said:

To answer your question on a fundamental level: Yes.

Though it could be argued that on some level they have compassion for humankind as a whole, they make it pretty clear that Jedi aren't supposed to have personal feelings toward other humans.

The rejection of emotion and passion as a critical component of the human experience is, IMO, the reason so many Jedi 'fall' to the darkside. If they don't want their members to experience/feel what it is to be human, that pretty much leaves emotionless robots.

Bottom line: Jedi tell people that they are only allowed to act on a limited number of impersonal emotions, which doesn't leave much room for them to be human.

edited for clarity.

This is so racist. Or specie-ist. Or organicist.

On a side note, from what I can tell the Jedi belief system seems to be an attempt to emulate Buddhist philosophy and mix it with the western ideals of 'good vs. evil'. In my understanding, they aren't really compatible belief systems.

Good and evil aren't really concepts in Buddhism. Some actions are considered more preferable than others, but at most I would summarize that as selfish vs. unselfish behavior.

22 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I explain it as you're looking at The Jedi Code as literal instructions and not as guiding philosophy in navigating the world. Because as you say you can't shut down your emotions but you can master them. This is a subtle but tremendously important distinction. You'll have to forgive me for being unable to make it clear to you.

Do you think the code is saying, "Be an emotionless robot?" Is that what you're taking out of "There is no emotion there is peace?"

Jedi Code

There is no emotion, there is peace. (literally, don't let emotion guide you, stay out of relationships, be a monk)

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. (What about wisdom? knowledge is not the end of the path)

There is no passion, there is serenity. (Or maybe both are fine if you are a well adjusted human)

There is no chaos, there is harmony. (No there is both at times and both are necessary for life)

There is no death, there is the Force. (Life and Death are the force, but sure)

The Jedi are so **** scared of the Sith temptation they built a huge dogma to maintain order. That's not healthy and it never lasts, like literally never in the history of their universe. In the end the Jedi were just embracing another facet of Fear. The fear of change as opposed to the fear of being connected to others by duty.

1 minute ago, GrimmyV said:

This is so racist. Or specie-ist. Or organicist.

I think more correctly I am a: Practical effect/makeup/CGI-ist.

48 minutes ago, benbaxter said:

On a side note, from what I can tell the Jedi belief system seems to be an attempt to emulate Buddhist philosophy and mix it with the western ideals of 'good vs. evil'. In my understanding, they aren't really compatible belief systems.

Good and evil aren't really concepts in Buddhism. Some actions are considered more preferable than others, but at most I would summarize that as selfish vs. unselfish behavior.

And if we look at the two codes from the framework of Jedi/Good/Unselfish and Sith/Evil/Selfish and that the Jedi are not literally saying be an emotionless robot?

Maybe I need to put this another way The Sith are not one side of a coin with the Jedi on the other. The Sith are not for chaos. They are not for the opposite of order. The Emperor and Vader brought order. Anakin talks about it as a joke to Padme in AOTC but it is expanded on in Clone Wars in The Citadel episodes. It's the big speech for Vader in Empire, "we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." If Order is a coin one side would be a functioning democracy while the other is an authoritarian dictatorship.

The Sith and The Jedi are separate coins.

3 hours ago, Frimmel said:

And if we look at the two codes from the framework of Jedi/Good/Unselfish and Sith/Evil/Selfish and that the Jedi are not literally saying be an emotionless robot?

Maybe I need to put this another way The Sith are not one side of a coin with the Jedi on the other. The Sith are not for chaos. They are not for the opposite of order. The Emperor and Vader brought order. Anakin talks about it as a joke to Padme in AOTC but it is expanded on in Clone Wars in The Citadel episodes. It's the big speech for Vader in Empire, "we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." If Order is a coin one side would be a functioning democracy while the other is an authoritarian dictatorship.

The Sith and The Jedi are separate coins.

1. You are attributing the label of 'good' to the Jedi without providing the reasoning behind that decision.

2. Nothing you said disproves my point that fundamentally they want their members to leave their humanity behind when they join the order.

3. The Jedi weren't even supposed to be involved in politics, so I am not sure why you think of them as a democracy. If anything they are a tribal oligarchy where the elders make all the rules and their people are required to follow them or be chased out (or killed).

Also, any time they did involve themselves in politics a lot of people ended up dying. And whether you like them or not, I think you'd have to admit they really didn't achieve anything despite all their meddling in the clone wars, except maybe save the Empire some trouble in hunting them all down.

At the risk of lending a series of children's films a philosophical depth and grounding that they don't really deserve (not least by citing fictional, mumbo-jumbo Jedi and Sith doctrines/mantras/slogans dreamed up by enthusiastic EU writers), it is perhaps useful to remind ourselves what Lucas thought he meant when he introduced the whole concept of 'restoring balance to the Force'.

In an interview for the Special Editions back in the late 1990s he referred to the OT as "the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe...."

Lucas compared the difference between the light and dark sides as being like the difference between a symbiotic relationship and a cancer. A symbiotic relationship is one which benefits both parties and in which neither is harmed, whereas a cancer takes without giving back, eventually causing the death of both parties.

I'd suggest another metaphor. A couple in a rowing boat are attacked by a lone predatory lunatic who tries to upset the boat, throw out and drown the guy and take control of the lovely girl. As the boat lists dangerously in the water, the guy in the boat resolutely takes the oar and thwacks the lunatic on the head, destroying him. As the lunatic slips below the surface forever, the boat restores to its natural 'balance'. In short, the Force's 'balance' doesn't require any presence of darkness/evil; the dominance of 'light/goodness' is the natural state. By killing the Emperor and simultaneously destroying Darth Vader, Anakin therefore restored the balance by destroying the Sith. As far as George Lucas was concerned, the story ended there at the end of Return of the Jedi, with the Sith destroyed and the Force in balance: "But there's no story past Episode VI, there's just no story. It's a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that's kind of the end of the story."

If the Mouse takes the 'balance' thing in another direction, it is really altering Lucas's whole original premise.

18 minutes ago, hismhs said:

At the risk of lending a series of children's films a philosophical depth and grounding that they don't really deserve (not least by citing fictional, mumbo-jumbo Jedi and Sith doctrines/mantras/slogans dreamed up by enthusiastic EU writers), it is perhaps useful to remind ourselves what Lucas thought he meant when he introduced the whole concept of 'restoring balance to the Force'.

In an interview for the Special Editions back in the late 1990s he referred to the OT as "the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe...."

Lucas compared the difference between the light and dark sides as being like the difference between a symbiotic relationship and a cancer. A symbiotic relationship is one which benefits both parties and in which neither is harmed, whereas a cancer takes without giving back, eventually causing the death of both parties.

I'd suggest another metaphor. A couple in a rowing boat are attacked by a lone predatory lunatic who tries to upset the boat, throw out and drown the guy and take control of the lovely girl. As the boat lists dangerously in the water, the guy in the boat resolutely takes the oar and thwacks the lunatic on the head, destroying him. As the lunatic slips below the surface forever, the boat restores to its natural 'balance'. In short, the Force's 'balance' doesn't require any presence of darkness/evil; the dominance of 'light/goodness' is the natural state. By killing the Emperor and simultaneously destroying Darth Vader, Anakin therefore restored the balance by destroying the Sith. As far as George Lucas was concerned, the story ended there at the end of Return of the Jedi, with the Sith destroyed and the Force in balance: "But there's no story past Episode VI, there's just no story. It's a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that's kind of the end of the story."

If the Mouse takes the 'balance' thing in another direction, it is really altering Lucas's whole original premise.

Sorry, any 'balance of the Force' talk only came from the PT, not the OT. It was not part of George's 'original vision'. All talk of prophecy and chosen ones were 90s story elements. OT, Vader was a former Jedi Knight that betrayed the Order and helped the Empire oppress the entire Galaxy, later redeeming himself by sacrificing himself and destroying the evil that seduced him. And even that wasn't part of the 'original vision'.

if Disney wants to create new path for the force to act in the galaxy, it's fine by me. The 'Jedi' we got with the OT deserve to be wiped out.

7 hours ago, GrimmyV said:

Sorry, any 'balance of the Force' talk only came from the PT, not the OT. It was not part of George's 'original vision'. All talk of prophecy and chosen ones were 90s story elements.

Agreed - it was clumsy of me to imply that from the very start Lucas had the story arc in his pocket. He was essentially making it up as he was going along (whatever he subsequently claimed to the contrary). So by 'original concept' I meant 'the concept as it had developed by the late 1990s.'

7 hours ago, GrimmyV said:

if Disney wants to create new path for the force to act in the galaxy, it's fine by me. The 'Jedi' we got with the OT deserve to be wiped out.

Wow. Given that the only Jedi (apart from Luke, by the end) in the OT are Obi Wan and Yoda, how does one watch the OT and come to that conclusion? That's like saying, "Because the hardworking local cops made a mistake which prevented them from catching a very devious serial killer, they all deserve to be executed." The only really objectionable thing about Obi Wan and Yoda is that they didn't immediately tell Luke that Vader was his father - which was itself presumably a product of the fact that (again!) Lucas was making it all up as he was going along.

3 hours ago, hismhs said:

Agreed - it was clumsy of me to imply that from the very start Lucas had the story arc in his pocket. He was essentially making it up as he was going along (whatever he subsequently claimed to the contrary). So by 'original concept' I meant 'the concept as it had developed by the late 1990s.'

Wow. Given that the only Jedi (apart from Luke, by the end) in the OT are Obi Wan and Yoda, how does one watch the OT and come to that conclusion? That's like saying, "Because the hardworking local cops made a mistake which prevented them from catching a very devious serial killer, they all deserve to be executed." The only really objectionable thing about Obi Wan and Yoda is that they didn't immediately tell Luke that Vader was his father - which was itself presumably a product of the fact that (again!) Lucas was making it all up as he was going along.

Sorry I meant PT.

but old Ben and yodi lied to Luke or kept him in the dark the whole time. By contrast Vader only told Luke the truth. Ben also waited 3 FAQing years to send Luke to yoda. What's up with that? So yeah, OT Jedi weren't too hot either

10 hours ago, hismhs said:

I'd suggest another metaphor. A couple in a rowing boat are attacked by a lone predatory lunatic who tries to upset the boat, throw out and drown the guy and take control of the lovely girl. As the boat lists dangerously in the water, the guy in the boat resolutely takes the oar and thwacks the lunatic on the head, destroying him. As the lunatic slips below the surface forever, the boat restores to its natural 'balance'.

Ignoring everything else, when would this scenario ever happen? A metaphor is only as powerful as its likelihood of happening.

13 hours ago, benbaxter said:

1. You are attributing the label of 'good' to the Jedi without providing the reasoning behind that decision.

2. Nothing you said disproves my point that fundamentally they want their members to leave their humanity behind when they join the order.

3. The Jedi weren't even supposed to be involved in politics, so I am not sure why you think of them as a democracy. If anything they are a tribal oligarchy where the elders make all the rules and their people are required to follow them or be chased out (or killed).

Also, any time they did involve themselves in politics a lot of people ended up dying. And whether you like them or not, I think you'd have to admit they really didn't achieve anything despite all their meddling in the clone wars, except maybe save the Empire some trouble in hunting them all down.

And you accused me of trolling? But fine...

1) The Jedi are on the side of the duly elected and accepted government. Said government is a Republic with a Senate or one of the versions of democracy. This puts them on the side of law and order and those elected to govern. They were "the guardians of peace and justice." This is commonly understood as the "good guys." Also Jedi Knights also typically a symbol of the side of good as in "Knights of The Round Table."

2) I can't "disprove" your supposed "point" as it is a deliberate and mistaken interpretation of the Jedi precept of non attachment.

3) Ben Kenobi in a big battle at the climax of ROTS claims that his loyalty is to The Republic and democracy. TPM begins with two Jedi being sent to mediate in a trade dispute. Mediators are typically agreed to by both sides who have beseeched a third party, in this case the aforementioned Republic, to assist. Where are you getting the idea that they weren't to be involved in "politics" other than having pulled it out of your troll backside?

Most organizations are an oligarchy. Someone's in charge. They have rules. You follow the rules or you leave. Ahsoka was allowed to leave and not chased down and killed. You probably work for one. This line of argument is patently disingenuous.

4) The leader of the government they thought they were serving was deceiving them. So "their meddling in the clone wars" was of course doomed. One also presumes since they were leading the "Grand Army of The Republic" created at the behest of the Senate that they were tasked to serve by that same governing body.

2 hours ago, Frimmel said:

And you accused me of trolling? But fine...

1) The Jedi are on the side of the duly elected and accepted government. Said government is a Republic with a Senate or one of the versions of democracy. This puts them on the side of law and order and those elected to govern. They were "the guardians of peace and justice." This is commonly understood as the "good guys." Also Jedi Knights also typically a symbol of the side of good as in "Knights of The Round Table."

2) I can't "disprove" your supposed "point" as it is a deliberate and mistaken interpretation of the Jedi precept of non attachment.

3) Ben Kenobi in a big battle at the climax of ROTS claims that his loyalty is to The Republic and democracy. TPM begins with two Jedi being sent to mediate in a trade dispute. Mediators are typically agreed to by both sides who have beseeched a third party, in this case the aforementioned Republic, to assist. Where are you getting the idea that they weren't to be involved in "politics" other than having pulled it out of your troll backside?

Most organizations are an oligarchy. Someone's in charge. They have rules. You follow the rules or you leave. Ahsoka was allowed to leave and not chased down and killed. You probably work for one. This line of argument is patently disingenuous.

4) The leader of the government they thought they were serving was deceiving them. So "their meddling in the clone wars" was of course doomed. One also presumes since they were leading the "Grand Army of The Republic" created at the behest of the Senate that they were tasked to serve by that same governing body.

1. Calling yourself a guardian of peace and justice doesn't make you one. Plenty of dictators have claimed that they are the good guys throughout history. I don't see Jedi as dictators, but at the same time, just claiming you are the good guy doesn't make it so.

Based on the actual myths, referencing the KotRT doesn't support your claim about them being 'good'. Based on actual history, knights in general are an even worse group of people.

2. I think we just fundamentally disagree on what it means to be human. I think that personal attachments are a critical part of our existence and you don't seem to. Those are fundamentally opposing ideals, and I don't think either one of us are going to change the other's opinion on this.

If your issue is that you think the Jedi are cool with personal attachments, I am not sure where you are getting that information. None of the canon material I've seen suggests that they approve of personal attachments to others. Heck, they didn't even want Anakin to save his mom from slavery.

3. The fact is that until the clone wars, the Jedi weren't part of the government in any way. They were a third party, as you mentioned, that weren't officially part of any government. They offered their services when um... Actually I am not sure when they chose to involve themselves, it seemed kind of arbitrary.

If democracy is your only requirement for 'goodness', then they could just as easily helped the CIS which was also a democracy. They were basically the 13 Colonies wanting to leave the British empire: wealthy people funding a populist movement to free themselves from the control and taxation of a government they no longer wanted to be part of.

Also, IIRC they hunted down and killed Jedi who left to join the Sith.

4. Okay... I'm not sure what your point is on this one. If it's 'they were manipulated by an evil guy', then the same applies to the CIS.

3 hours ago, benbaxter said:

...If democracy is your only requirement for 'goodness', then they could just as easily helped the CIS which was also a democracy. They were basically the 13 Colonies wanting to leave the British empire: wealthy people funding a populist movement to free themselves from the control and taxation of a government they no longer wanted to be part of.

Also, IIRC they hunted down and killed Jedi who left to join the Sith.

4. Okay... I'm not sure what your point is on this one. If it's 'they were manipulated by an evil guy', then the same applies to the CIS.

That is something I appreciate in some of the Clone Wars cartoon episodes, where you got to see Separatists who were the idealists trying to get away from the Republic's corruption, but were being manipulated by the likes of Dooku, just as the Republic were being manipulated directly by Palpatine.

9 hours ago, Xerandar said:

Ignoring everything else, when would this scenario ever happen? A metaphor is only as powerful as its likelihood of happening.

Ha! I crave everyone's pardon that my rocking rowing boat metaphor lacked the requisite degree of realism for a discussion about telekinetic space wizards with laser swords who struggle over millenia to control a fictional galaxy!

George's "original vision" changes on his mood. Seriously, he has never been consistent. But, this thread just makes me think of this...

Just now, hismhs said:

Ha! I crave everyone's pardon that my rocking rowing boat metaphor lacked the requisite degree of realism for a discussion about telekinetic space wizards with laser swords who struggle over millenia to control a fictional galaxy!

Setting has little effect on a story's potency. An audience needs to feel for the characters and in order to do this, the characters need to be believable. Luke Skywalker was a young everyman who had the folksy yet innocent charm that could topple Empires. People like that, in spite of the improbability of such a thing happening. Yet there are limits: and a lunatic rocking a row boat just isn't viable enough to feel anything towards*

*except a giggle if you've seen Deliverance.

54 minutes ago, hismhs said:

Ha! I crave everyone's pardon that my rocking rowing boat metaphor lacked the requisite degree of realism for a discussion about telekinetic space wizards with laser swords who struggle over millenia to control a fictional galaxy!

To me, the swinging around wildly isn't representative of what a Sith master would do.

Someone like Palpatine would do things to make the Jedi slowly go crazy and scare the other person on the boat until they side against the Jedi as well. Then the Sith would hold a vote and state that the Jedi needs to get himself in check or leave the boat. Eventually the Jedi would resort to violence, as they often do when they can't talk/bully/mind control people into doing what they want. At that point the other person would support the Sith in removing the Jedi from the boat.

12 hours ago, benbaxter said:

To me, the swinging around wildly isn't representative of what a Sith master would do.

Someone like Palpatine would do things to make the Jedi slowly go crazy and scare the other person on the boat until they side against the Jedi as well. Then the Sith would hold a vote and state that the Jedi needs to get himself in check or leave the boat. Eventually the Jedi would resort to violence, as they often do when they can't talk/bully/mind control people into doing what they want. At that point the other person would support the Sith in removing the Jedi from the boat.

And he wouldn't have to manipulate very much to get some serious anti-Jedi sentiment. Imagine what the common people in the galaxy know of the Jedi.
They advocate themself as the keepers of peace - one of their former members starts the whole CIS crisis. The first reaction of the Jedi is: To war!
They advocate themself as the supporters of the weak - there are around 10000 Jedi in total. Including Younglings and Padawans and they operate only in teams of at least two. So around effective 4000 Jedi teams to cover a galaxy of 1.5mio major inhabited systems and countless millions of settlements. You are living a ****** up life under some local dictator? The chances a Jedi would come and visit your planet are slim at best.

Additionally the Jedi aren't part of the government nor of any of it's organisations but act as if they are. No wonder this pisses many people off.

In fact it's a great story point when you think about it. The Jedi of the old (KotoR era) were the great keepers of peace with the numbers and support to operate in the whole galaxy. They were actually a part of the Republics forces. The Jedi of the PT imagine themself as still beeing the Order of the old times but have longe since turned into an stacnating order of dogmatic monks who are running into dead ends with nearly every aspect of their philosophy.
If you think about it this way they had to fall at some point,
Thats why I love the New Jedi Order of the old EU. They were much more oriented towards the learnings of the KotoR Era.

15 hours ago, hismhs said:

Ha! I crave everyone's pardon that my rocking rowing boat metaphor lacked the requisite degree of realism for a discussion about telekinetic space wizards with laser swords who struggle over millenia to control a fictional galaxy!

For what it's worth I thought it was alright.

Seems to me we have a lot of "The Jedi are not perfectly the most perfectness of perfect good therefore they aren't good at all" going on in this thread and the other about Luke going to the darkside just getting ESBII. It seems to me there is also how did someone put it "all the power and none of the responsibility" going on. Seems to me there are many in here who want dark side powers without being considered evil or Jedi powers without the duty those bring. I'll just add it to the pile of things that caused my long held idea that in our culture power has been decoupled from duty and responsibility.

Edit: this is the thread about the Luke turning to the dark side. These two conversations are bleeding together for me.

33 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

For what it's worth I thought it was alright.

Seems to me we have a lot of "The Jedi are not perfectly the most perfectness of perfect good therefore they aren't good at all" going on in this thread and the other about Luke going to the darkside just getting ESBII. It seems to me there is also how did someone put it "all the power and none of the responsibility" going on. Seems to me there are many in here who want dark side powers without being considered evil or Jedi powers without the duty those bring. I'll just add it to the pile of things that caused my long held idea that in our culture power has been decoupled from duty and responsibility.

Edit: this is the thread about the Luke turning to the dark side. These two conversations are bleeding together for me.

But that's the thing. I don't think Luke is going to the dark side. But I do think, based on lore, the Jedi were a flawed group who in the years leading up to the Clone Wars, grew stagnant. This was even a concept in the old EU.

That doesn't mean they didn't try to do good or weren't heroes.

Yep. Nobody accused the Jedi of not beeing perfect. But of calling themself to be flawless while beeing a stagnant shadow of themself.

Thats also the whole point of Anakins fall to the dark side. The descrepancy between "We are the guardians of peace and we help everyone." and them not saving his mother and Padmé when she fell out of the Laat/i.