Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Forever a sith?


nimmerstil's Avatar


nimmerstil
11.11.2015 , 02:14 PM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by Joachimthbear View Post
But how do you do that in advance of the loss itself?
The same way everyone learns, while growing up. Loosing friends (not neccesarily through death...), beloved pets, etc. Loss really is not that exceptional, most people learn to deal with it without any special training.

Quote:
Based on what we know of the Jedi and their beliefs I think it's quite reasonable to assume that Anakin got years of teaching and meditation on the subject of what "there is no death, there is the Force" means.
Based on what we've seen, he's got absolutely zero teaching or support in dealing with his past.

Btw, I've yet to see any solid explanation about "there is no death", I wonder if there's been any teaching on that line.

Quote:
But until the moment when his mother died in his arms, his belief in that principle had never been truly tested.
Too bad, a pet in his care might have taught him more about life and death then all the hours of studying the Jedi Code.

Quote:
The Jedi could have given him counselling and support afterwards, if he had told them the truth about what happened. But that would have been too late to stop his vengeful rampage anyway.
He apparently lacked the trust to talk about what happened. That kind of trust is rooted in safe attachments.

Quote:
I know this isn't an argument you like, but there really is a world of difference between recognising a problem (Force users falling to the Dark Side because of personal trauma) and applying an imperfect solution, versus outright encouraging the problem as a source of "strength".
Force users don't fall because of personal trauma, they fall because they fail to handle personal trauma. You can not reasonably expect to be able to protect all force users from personal trauma for ever; the 'imperfect solution' isn't just imperfect, it is destined to fail, frequently.

The problem with the imperfect solution is that safe attachments are crucial for a child's healthy development.

Audoucet's Avatar


Audoucet
11.11.2015 , 03:49 PM | #22
Everybody seems to just ignore canon lore...

Jedis, totalitarians ? You can't call a sect totalitarian just because it expels you, when you don't want to respect the rules. It's the exact same thing in... Well, everything : school, work, associations... Friendship too, you don't play around someone who continues to hit on your spouse behind your back.

And the dark side COOOORRUPTS. It makes every feeling more powerful, and turns them dark.

And even though, Jedis are very forgiving. Count Doku, anyone ? They didn't touch him, after leaving the order. Bastila ? she had a child, and is still a master of the order.

Accusing the Jedis to be dictators is a very childish attitude.

Oh, and Anakin ? He wouldn't have been a fallen Jedi, if everybody listened to the council, and left alone on his planet.

nimmerstil's Avatar


nimmerstil
11.12.2015 , 04:13 AM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Audoucet View Post
And the dark side COOOORRUPTS. It makes every feeling more powerful, and turns them dark.
When looking at the movies, you only see it's the choices characters make that turn them to dark side, not the powers they use. Though we do have an expression, I think, stating that 'power corrupts' ....

Quote: Originally Posted by Audoucet View Post
And even though, Jedis are very forgiving. Count Doku, anyone ? They didn't touch him, after leaving the order. Bastila ? she had a child, and is still a master of the order.
Forgiving? What's there to forgive about bearing child?

Joachimthbear's Avatar


Joachimthbear
11.12.2015 , 04:54 AM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
Based on what we've seen, he's got absolutely zero teaching or support in dealing with his past.
Right, there are years-long gaps in what we see of Anakin's or anyone's training. So what do we fill those gaps with? Non-stop lightsaber practice? Advanced classes in how to understand Master Yoda?

You seem to be assuming that whenever we don't explicitly see the Jedi are doing, it's something cruel or neglectful. No doubt I'm making equally wild, opposite assumptions. But if what we're guessing at is the writers' intent, and since the writers obviously want us to think of the Jedi as good guys, relatively speaking, doesn't it make sense to be charitable in our assumptions, when lacking any other evidence?

I haven't read or seen a huge amount of Star Wars expanded universe stuff, but I have read the comics with Zayne Carrick, where he does have friends and contact with the outside world, even with the families of his fellow padawans. Does this contradict material elsewhere? Maybe, but it's at least a point in favour of the idea that the Jedi don't cloister their trainees away from all personal attachment. They do seem to object to specific relationships or kinds of relationships, but anything I can say to that is based on my own interpretations of the Force and its workings.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
Forgiving? What's there to forgive about bearing child?
The key point, if I understood correctly, is that the Jedi do not have an absolute, definite "no love and relationships or you're out" rule.

nimmerstil's Avatar


nimmerstil
11.12.2015 , 06:11 AM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by Joachimthbear View Post
You seem to be assuming that whenever we don't explicitly see the Jedi are doing, it's something cruel or neglectful.
No. You don't see any traces of (effective) training or counseling to help him deal with his past, the logical conclusion is that he received none. The Jedi took Anakin from his mother, with all good intentions and we all agree with their cause of action at that point. We do not see what was done to mend his trauma's, but we do know that whatever was done, or not, was ineffective.

Assuming otherwise is making assumption that do not respect what we're shown.

Quote:
and since the writers obviously want us to think of the Jedi as good guys,
I am not saying they don't want us to think of them as the good guys, I am saying that what they are showing us regarding the raising of force sensitives children has obvious flaws.

Quote:
Does this contradict material elsewhere? Maybe,
It does. Everything we see in the movies suggest they are removed from their families at a (preferably) young age. Anakin never sees his and it is strongly suggested that this would preferably happened at a younger age. You are the first to suggest that is not their usual cause of action.

My position is that taking children away from their families and not allowing them to bond and form safe attachments (with caretakers) is unhealthy - and a recipe for failure (falling to the ds at a later age).

Quote:
The key point, if I understood correctly, is that the Jedi do not have an absolute, definite "no love and relationships or you're out" rule.
That was however the message from the movies. It's also reflected in other material and forum posts.

Basically, I read your post as to agree with me regarding attachments, at least for the children, but, you say, the Jedi Order does allow force-sensitive children and Jedi to form attachments. Am I correct in my interpretation?

Quote:
The key point, if I understood correctly, is that the Jedi do not have an absolute, definite "no love and relationships or you're out" rule.
What does that mean?

My question stands, what is to forgive about bearing a child?

Joachimthbear's Avatar


Joachimthbear
11.12.2015 , 08:05 AM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
Basically, I read your post as to agree with me regarding attachments, at least for the children, but, you say, the Jedi Order does allow force-sensitive children and Jedi to form attachments. Am I correct in my interpretation?
I know I've probably been a bit confusing as it's a complicated issue. I'll see if I can break it down at all.

Realistically speaking there is no denying what you say: taking children from their parents unnecessarily is not going to have good effects. In the real world if a group of people were acting like the Jedi and saying, "don't worry, we'll make it all better with the power of magic and miracles", that would not fly for one second.

Now, bearing that in mind, we are talking about a world where magical and miraculous powers are real. So when the Jedi say "we can make things better", they may not be either insane or lying. Firstly, then: I believe that whatever isolation Jedi initiates do suffer is less harmful to them because they become less dependent on ordinary personal attachments and develop a relationship with the Force itself. What the Jedi want is for their members to trust the Force above all. They want their members to give themselves fully to the Force and thereby to become fulfilled. Worldly concerns, personal concerns, passions and desires, these get in the way. The Jedi teach transcendence from such things. Letting go of your family is part of letting go of everything.

By this understanding, there would be no problem with friendships, even family connections, as long as your responsibilities as a Jedi come first. If anything, cultivating such connections would be a crucial part of learning to let them go or set them aside when the time is right. Hence I also think that the Jedi do not operate a strict policy of "no family, no friends, no connections," as some sources suggest. And here we hit that big mire of inconsistency. You say I'm the first to suggest that the Jedi don't cut their trainees off from their families, except that I'm not the first - it was in a comic I read.

Now, this does clash with what we see from Anakin - he's taken from Tatooine and has no contact with his only living family member throughout his training. So was Zayne's experience exceptional, or was Anakin's? And is there a difference between Jedi policy in the Old Republic era and in that of the films? Anakin's case is filled with what seem to be exceptional circumstances, and while I would accept the argument that the Jedi should have found some way, any way, to free his mother as well - simply because nobody deserves to live as a slave - the scenario presented makes it nearly impossible for Anakin to remain in contact with her. I know I'm on difficult ground here but there is at least an argument for not reading too much into Anakin's individual case.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
What does that mean?

My question stands, what is to forgive about bearing a child?
Well, I don't want to put words in Audoucet's mouth, this is just how I read it. Being "forgiving" doesn't necessarily mean that there is "crime" or somesuch to forgive; it can just be another way to say "lenient" or "understanding". I don't think that Dooku broke any rules at all simply by leaving the Order, and if he did, what would the punishment be? Kick him out? Unless a dark Jedi starts actually breaking the Republic's laws the Jedi have no other sanctions they can take against them. On the other hand, they could expel a Jedi for having an illicit relationship if indeed that is something they have a strict rule against.

Now, what's the difference between a rule and a strict rule in this context? Well, assuming I'm right about the Jedi view on relationships, then it might work like this: purely from a practical point of view, it's much easier to have a rule that says "don't do this" and enforce it situationally, than to have no rule but sometimes arbitrarily sanction people anyway. Better to "reserve the right" to take action in any case than to arbitrarily take action against those who've broken no rule. In the end I think the difference between Satele and Anakin is that the Jedi Council trusted Satele's judgement and detachment. They didn't trust Anakin's. They seem to have been right in both cases.

Audoucet seemed to be responding specifically to the suggestion that the Jedi are a totalitarian sect who harshly impose their rules. As he/she said, that's simply not true.

nimmerstil's Avatar


nimmerstil
11.12.2015 , 09:47 AM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Joachimthbear View Post
So when the Jedi say "we can make things better", they may not be either insane or lying.
They failed with Anakin, so obviously they can not 'make things better', they failed him in a way that makes it hard to believe this was just a mistake.


Quote:
Now, bearing that in mind .... it was in a comic I read.
You're basically saying, ignore what you saw in the movies, the Jedi are not at all like they show. While I have little issue, for now, with your perspective, I do have issue with the source, because, frankly, there's a comic to be found for every statement one would want to make about Jedi and the Force.

Quote:
Well, I don't want to put words in Audoucet's mouth, this is just how I read it. Being "forgiving" doesn't necessarily mean that there is "crime" or somesuch to forgive; it can just be another way to say "lenient" or "understanding".
Not a crime, but 'forgiving' does heavily imply there is some form of wrongdoing, a fault or an offense, to be forgiven for.

Quote:
I don't think that Dooku broke any rules at all simply by leaving the Order, and if he did, what would the punishment be? Kick him out? Unless a dark Jedi starts actually breaking the Republic's laws the Jedi have no other sanctions they can take against them. On the other hand, they could expel a Jedi for having an illicit relationship if indeed that is something they have a strict rule against.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it
There's no gain for the Order to expel anyone, doing so risk loosing all influence on them ... Most SW fiction seems to miss this point.

Quote:
Now, what's the difference between a rule and a strict rule in this context? Well, assuming I'm right about the Jedi view on relationships, then it might work like this: purely from a practical point of view, it's much easier to have a rule that says "don't do this" and enforce it situationally, than to have no rule but sometimes arbitrarily sanction people anyway Better to "reserve the right" to take action in any case than to arbitrarily take action against those who've broken no rule.
"Situational" does sound a bit like arbitrarily ... Anyway, the Jedi Order raises it's members, and if they decide that one Jedi is, and another isn't capable of engaging in a (romantic) attachment then the latter is essentially an indication of a failure in their raising (training) of that Jedi.

Quote:
In the end I think the difference between Satele and Anakin is that the Jedi Council trusted Satele's judgement and detachment. They didn't trust Anakin's. They seem to have been right in both cases.
The Shan's have a history of birthing and raising children, don't they? Apparently allowing attachments worked out quite well .... Anakin never, afaik, confided with the council about his romantic interests, in my opinion because he didn't trust them. He didn't trust them because they failed to build that trust with him, which, I believe, points back to his attachment issues.

Quote:
Audoucet seemed to be responding specifically to the suggestion that the Jedi are a totalitarian sect who harshly impose their rules. As he/she said, that's simply not true.
I never said that, did I? I critique some methods and idea's, I pointed out there was no wrongdoing to forgive, but don't see them as a totalitarian sect. That said, I do remember a quest on Tython where a student was about to be expelled for not quite understanding some force thing (I forgot the exact task). It seemed rather harsh to me.

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
11.12.2015 , 10:21 AM | #28
Children in the order have safe attachments. Their masters. That being said, I think posters forget having those attachments mean nothing to the matters of trust.

Children don't tell adults everything. People don't tell friends everything. People don't generally tell one person all their insecurities.

As for Bastilla having a child. No, that was not wrong. It was however against the Jedi teachings to have such attachments.

These Jedi are adults, they can leave the order anytime they want. They can even break the rules of the order. That doesn't mean there can't be consequences for those actions.

Becoming a police officer and not reporting the marijuana dealer, because of your own beliefs on whether or not it should be legal (yes, it's now legal in some states...this is just an example) /can/ get you fired from your job. A job you may just love, even if you don't agree with all the rules.

Anakin had other options to him. He could have fought to change the order's rules. He could have quit the order. Once one is made a knight, one is generally out of the study with a teacher and into the train on your own area.

Anakin had other options, other than the Jedi Order, to do good and protect people. He wanted to be in the Jedi. He also wanted things way to much. "They didn't give me the title/rank I wanted. They're jealous of me!"

Anakin was a powerful force user who had issues he couldn't get past. Though, I often wonder why the Jedi didn't go back to get his mother or he himself before he was that old.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so *********** what." - Stephen Fry

Joachimthbear's Avatar


Joachimthbear
11.12.2015 , 10:47 AM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
You're basically saying, ignore what you saw in the movies, the Jedi are not at all like they show.
What can I say? My memory may be faulty, my knowledge of the wider EU is terrible, but I think there's at least room for my interpretation, even taking the films into account. We see the story of one very unusual Jedi being recruited by an unconventional Master with non-standard Jedi beliefs. We don't see the ordinary practice or the general case.

For example - if Tatooine had its own Jedi Academy or Enclave (assuming such things exist; KOTOR had a regional academy on Dantooine) then Anakin could have been taken there, instead of all the way to Coruscant. Tatooine happens to be a barely habitable crime-ridden mess of a planet and outside Republic jurisdiction, and so that couldn't happen. Even making a holocall home from time to time doesn't seem to be an option in the Star Wars universe due to weird technology inconsistencies. Jedi policy or not, unless Anakin's mother was freed from slavery or Anakin was left in slavery, there weren't a lot of options for them to stay in touch.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
While I have little issue, for now, with your perspective, I do have issue with the source, because, frankly, there's a comic to be found for every statement one would want to make about Jedi and the Force.
I fully get that. There's a lot of expanded universe and stuff contradicts other stuff. We end up being kind of selective in choosing what sources to believe over others.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
There's no gain for the Order to expel anyone, doing so risk loosing all influence on them ... Most SW fiction seems to miss this point.
The only gain for the Order from kicking someone out is a matter of principle: a way of saying, "this person does not represent us". While it seems to be variable how much legal authority the Jedi have, their public regard and respect as peacekeepers and mediators is crucial. But expelling someone might be more for the sake of the person expelled than for the sake of the Order itself. If being a Jedi is not for you, if the life is too restrictive and demanding, then better to leave than to stay where you don't really want to be. That's the worst sanction Anakin faced, after all: being told he couldn't continue as a Jedi. Would that have been so terrible? He thought so.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
"Situational" does sound a bit like arbitrarily ...
It is. In the sense that "arbitrarily" means "as a matter of judgement". The difference I was pointing out is psychological - a way to keep people from feeling victimised. However, this whole point is purely speculation on my part. The Jedi may in fact have a very precisely-worded rule on this matter rather than a flexible catch-all.

One way to word it might be, "no getting married". If you love someone and want to commit to spending your life with them, then you need to make a choice: step back from that relationship, or accept that the Jedi path is not for you anymore. But again, I can't say whether this is their actual rule.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
Anyway, the Jedi Order raises it's members, and if they decide that one Jedi is, and another isn't capable of engaging in a (romantic) attachment then the latter is essentially an indication of a failure in their raising (training) of that Jedi.
That's fair. But it's also fair to say that being a Jedi isn't for everyone. Some are inevitably going to just not take to it. Not everyone who walks away does so for the sake of love, but it's just as good a reason as any.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
The Shan's have a history of birthing and raising children, don't they? Apparently allowing attachments worked out quite well.
Seems that way, yep. Could be significant when you realise that Force sensitivity is implied to be a hereditary trait, so if the Jedi really are routinely cloistering people and denying them any relationships, they're effectively culling those genes from the galactic population.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
Anakin never, afaik, confided with the council about his romantic interests, in my opinion because he didn't trust them. He didn't trust them because they failed to build that trust with him, which, I believe, points back to his attachment issues.
Well, remember that the Council actually rejected Anakin. They said he was too afraid of leaving his old life behind. They didn't want him to be trained. Neither Anakin nor the Council was ever going to forget that. You can still say the Council should have worked to build trust, but there was a division there before Anakin's training even started. There's a good argument for saying that that pre-existing fear of loss was the key to Anakin's fall, just as Yoda suspected from the start.

Quote: Originally Posted by nimmerstil View Post
I never said that, did I?
I didn't mean that you had. Some people in this thread are arguing differently, is all.

nimmerstil's Avatar


nimmerstil
11.12.2015 , 10:47 AM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
Children in the order have safe attachments. Their masters.
I don't think that is possible if their masters can't form attachments .... They might let non-jedi take care of the children but then, why leave them with their families, provide some counseling them to give them the best possible start and train them at the academy when they're old enough and properly 'grounded'.

Quote:
Anakin was a powerful force user who had issues he couldn't get past. Though, I often wonder why the Jedi didn't go back to get his mother or he himself before he was that old.
This, so very much.