Skallagrim
Well-known member
You're a lying liar who lies.
We have Tales of the Jedi to show us that (pretty shortly!) pre-KotOR, relationships and children were just fine. We have comics from the post-ToR era showing us there were whole Jedi dynasties. So... no. You're deliberately taking the only two periods that actually have this dogmatic approach, and you're pasting that onto the whole galactic history. In complete contradiction with established fact.
You're conflating your fanon with actual canon. Now I know that I mentioned my own subjective interpretation, too. But when I do it, as you can see in my post, I specifically mention it as such. You, on the other hand, want to pretend that your fanon is canon, even when it contradicts canon.
If you want to keep doing that, it's your choice, but then discussion becomes pointless, because you prioritise your own opinions over facts, so no argument -- no matter how well-crafted -- could ever convince you.
That's your reading of how these things work. Now, I'm just a lowly ethics professor, not a psychologist, but from a philosophical perspective, your take here is... well, the kind of ill-considered "gotcha" we see from freshman students. You wouldn't pass my introduction to ethics class if you raised arguments like these.
From a psychological perspective (which, again, is not my actual field), your attitude strikes me as... rather unhealthy.
The fault is with the Order of that time, and the state it is in. Note that once Yoda admits how horribly he failed, he is able to train Luke, who is much older than Anakin was at that point.
The issue was never Anakin. It was the Order being unable to adequately deal with someone like Anakin, because the Order had already been maimed by centuries of careful Sith manipulation.
Again, you show an extremely unhealthy attitude. You're thinking "military boot camp", which is not the way to create psychologically well-balanced samurai wizards.
If you re-watch RotJ, look at the scene where Anakin is talking to Yoda about the fear of someone dying. Yoda doesn't know it's about Padmé. In the commentary, it's actually brought up that Yoda thinks Anakin is talking about Obi-Wan dying. And since they're in a war, that's not improbable! And Yoda gives him good advice... for that situation.
Anakin can't tell Yoda about Padmé. If he could, if marriage had been allowed, Yoda could have helped him out with far better advice. It's the secrecy that dooms Anakin. It's the secrecy that makes Palpatine his only confidant.
That's purely your take on it. I say dogmatism is the flaw, which leads to them being unable to handle attachments healthily.
I really feel I've provided the more compelling arguments here.
1. You're begging the question. That's a bit of a no-no in serious debate.
2. You assume that a crude (in fact, almost farcical) form of consequentialism is the only correct view of ethical questions. That's, uh... a really bad take. You've now slipped from "college freshman" ethics to "high school" level. We could argue about real-world philosophy (my own take is derived from virtue ethics), but here's the bottom line: everything about SW as a fictional universe points towards a very strong deontological view of ethics. The Force itself, with its Light and Dark aspects, is an expression of that. To argue consequentialism in Star Wars is to completely miss some of the basic assumptions the setting rests upon.
3. You then devolve into utilitarianism (or as we call it: the sad little boy's version of consequentialism) in the second quote. You seem to have mistaken the Jedi for Vulcans. (A mistake that might also explain your interpretation of the merits of denying attachments.)
4. You play a very false game by setting your assumptions as hard facts in the scenario you invented, leading to a hobson's choice that only exists because you rigged it. "If the Jedi does nothing, that leads to a much better life for all!" -- Oh? Do you know that? Based on what evidence? There is a moral imperative to do what is right (you can go from Socrates to Kant on that one, you'll find it broadly supported). If we consider various consequences, we can weigh them by various metrics, naturally. But if we don't know the consequences, then my advice -- as, if I do say so myself, an expert on the subject of ethics -- is to do the best you can. If the consequences are unclear, then work with the facts you have, and do the right thing based on what you know. Nobody knows the future, nobody knows whether it'll work out for sure-- but you'll have acted honestly, and that's the basis of ἀρετή.
No. You confuse "your own standard" for "any standard you care to use". Perhaps because you only care to use your own standard.
But I don't care for your standard at all, because it's pretty childish and poorly considered, which is revealed upon even cursory examination.
This is a long diatribe that consists entirely of your own opinions and fanon. To which you are entitled, but which you should not conflate with canonical facts.
Unfortunately, that is precisely what you do.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to have a debate on:
1. Which fanon we think is the coolest or most sensible or would improve the setting, all in the full understanding that we're purely sharing opinions, and not canonical facts.
2. What's canonically supported, in which case we're going to leave out fanon takes entirely, and assertions will (unfortunately) have to be sourced.
3. What we actually think about "Jedi" as a concept versus "Light-sider", since I do believe that the Jedi only represent one particular tradition, and other approaches obviously exists outside it. (And in the old EU, we see some of them, and we can look at the differences.) I think you and I view this matter differently, but we do agree that "Jedi" is only a specific group within the broader frame of "people on the side of the Light", so we have a starting point for analysis there.
Whichever we might talk about, though, I think it's only reasonably possible to discuss one at a time, instead of wildly jumbling them together.
Last edited:
