Absolutely. As Anakin says, Jedi are encouraged to love in that sense.
It is the focussed, attached love of falling for a person, as Anakin does with Padme, that is forbidden.
So no contradiction, mephisto. The most direct sourcing we have says- attachment is forbidden. Sorry, that's how it is. It isn't what you agree with. GL has made it clear.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Absolutely. As Anakin says, Jedi are encouraged to love in that sense.It is the focussed, attached love of falling for a person, as Anakin does with Padme, that is forbidden.
So no contradiction, mephisto. The most direct sourcing we have says- attachment is forbidden. Sorry, that's how it is. It isn't what you agree with. GL has made it clear.
You're the one arguing what you agree with, the most direct sourceing is, as you said, "Attachment is forbidden." End of line. So where do you get all this other info you're spouting? There's a reason they're not allowed to HAVE FAMILY or be married. It's all deep personal attachment, this is evidenced in the films by statements and actions in the films showing that Jedi are taken from their families, and none are shown with spouses and the line "Attachment is forbidden". That's what Lucas has provided us, that's what the Jedi of the Old Republic believed in. Luke then saves his father by STRENGTHENING his attachment to Luke by believing in him ("I feel the good in you, the Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully"😉. He feeds and builds on that attatchment and saves him. So Lucas has clearly shown to sides to one view point. he isn't contradicting anything, he's showed, on film, that Luke's love for Anakin saved him. Pure and simple. Its right there on film, I don't see how you can argue with it. Anakin saves his son by killiing the Empreor, tells Luke he was right all along, and urges him to get to safety. That's deep familial love. Lucas isn't really taking sides, all he's done is show both sides. One side say "Attachment is forbidden" the other shows through action that attachment saves Anakin. Its dramatic irony, something that is clearly lost on you. Sorry to be rude Ush, but you seem to believe one thing, claiming its on film, when your interpretation requires to much exposition when my explanation sights where what I can see happening is on film. You've interpreted "Attachment is forbiden' to only mean certain things when the films clearly show otherwise.
USH--something else to consider, I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Yoda and Obi-wan also separate Luke and Leia. Now, is that for their protection? or because they don't want Luke gettin' attached to her in a familial way. Because Vader did try to use that against Luke, and it almost pushed Luke over the edge. Yoda was also not happy Luke had learned his father's identity. It appeared from Yoda's conversation with Luke and Obi-wan's conversation with Luke following Yoda's death, that the plan had always been for Luke to kill Vader without ever knowing who he was. And yet, dispite the Yoda and Ben not wanting him to find out about Vader before killing him, because of the obvious instant attachment that would, and eventually did, ensue. But, ironically, it was this attachment that Luke has, his love for his father, which saves Anakin. Just wondering what your interpretation of the subtext of all this would be.
Uber-God:
irony: humorous or sardonic literary style; incongruity between the actual results of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.
Those are from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. They are the context in which I use "irony" for anybody else who wants to bust out the semantics in relation to my posts.
In the case of that Star Wars saga: incongruity between the actual results of a sequence of events (Anakin returning to the lightside because of his son's love) and the normal or expected result (Attachment being forbidden because it can lead to the dark side in the case of Anakin's love for his mother). That "incongruity" is ironic, and therefore, according to the first definition, humorous.
I've never, outside of English or Debate class, had to so throughly defend my position or evidence in a discussion. Its fun though... god I need to get out more... 😮💨
I keep with the things I said and Darth Subject said.
Sorry Ush, I can't support your thing.
Lucas many times contradicts himself(okay, we must see Ep3, before this subject is truelly in for discussion), but why does Yoda say he's failed the Jedi Order in according to the Novel-excerpts>there's a great explanation as to why he thinks that and then Qui Gonn steps in.
I mean, this comes from the BIG GL himself...
(Thanks MephistoDesigns to support my theorie for the most part!).
Uhhhhm....to get back on topic>This thread I designed for facts and explained Episode3 stuff.....and now I see again (sorry to say) USELESS threads arrive on the forum like AGAIN>Sidious face...or Palp's age.
Can't people use the searchbutton or something.
No offense...let's get back on TOPIC>Thread-TOPIC!!!
These topics are fun indeed Mephisto!...as long as people don't start killing eachother!
Everybody is entitled to his own oppinion, but I like the contest in it.
I make a thread(see topic) and suddenly everybody jumps on one subject which they find interesting to discuss about.
Not too long ofcourse or there will be closures because of an off-topic bumping-party or peeps feel the need to say it is a USELESS thread(like I myself commit myself to once in while).
Stay on topic, discuss a while on a subject and get back on topic again.
Later dudes.....