EU Continuity problem in KOTOR?

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
i dont fully understand what you are trying to say here. please rephrase this.

OK...again...just for you.
The insane person says something...It's only true for the insane person ("Chair = Table"😉.
Anakin says something...It's only true for Anakin ("Anakin = more powerful than anyone else in the Council"😉.

And when Sio Bibble says something, it's only true for Sio Bibble. It's an expression of his personal oppinion as a acting character or simply that what Lucas wants him to say. If statements from characters are not necesseraly refering to an overall "truth" than it's only there personal oppinion.

Now that simply means if Sio Bibble says there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic that only means that Sio Bibble thinks there was no full scale war since the formation of the Republic. It doesn't mean that there realy was no full scale war.

And thereby you have solved you continuity problem. And also every other problem where the movies seem to contradict the EU or themselves. If anything the people in the movies say is just the "truth" from their own point of view it doesn't have to be "logical", "objective" or "based on facts". It's just their own thoughts and those can be contradicted. In the films as well as in the EU.

haha! no, the socratic method is not to be sceptical, unfortunatly. that is the laymens definition of it. but is not what it really is. (i dont know if u noticed this, but im a philosophy major, that majors in argument aka. logic) is using others argumentation against them to prove them wrong. meaning, i do not pretend to know that i know somehting, but you believe to think you know something, so i ask you questions pretaning to what you think you know in order to prove to you that in fact you dont know that you know what you think you know, even though i knew from the start that you didnt know what though you did. get it?

Wohoo...and you are philosophy major ? First off: The "socratic method" doesn't have anything to do with "argumentation" because it's a method for philosophical analyses. Maybe you simply missed that point.
The socratic method is sceptical because it begins with Socrates real or professed denial of the "truth" in any matter. That is also called "Socratic irony" a kind of scepticism that was maybe influenced by the Sophists with the difference that their scepticism was difinitive and final where Socrates is not.
In terms of conversation that method employs dialogue not only as a didactic device. Socrates was always searching for "truths" that all humans can agree and therefore Socrates proceeded to unfold such truths in discussions or by doing "question and answer". You just go on with criticism until a more adequate conception emerges. That can also be refered to as the maieutic method, an art of intellectual midwifery which overall goal is to give birth to other peoples ideas. You can also call that a dialectical method or the method of elenchus.
The socratic method relies on concepts (justice, moral and so on) and definitions as a precices definition of terms is the first step in a problem solving process. It's as well empirical or inductive (criticize definitions by reference to particular instances) as deductive (testing definition by drawing out it implications and deducing it's consequences).

And a method for analyses of "truth" is simply not useful for an argumentation since you can't "convince" somebody with it.

its a very annoying argumentitive form, because you (the user of the socratic method) have no stance in the argument other then the fact that you know you dont know, and the point is to prove to the other person they know as much as you do, which is nothing.

The "Advocatus Diaboli" or "promoter fidei" is a canon lawyer appointed by the catholic church to argue against canonization. It's a sophistic method (as it's difinitive and final denial) to look for "holes" in the given evidence. Now - as you see - I just have proven your view on what is "canon" wrong (actualy you have done that for yourself) since anything that people say in the movies can't be automaticaly considered as "canon". The events in the movies are "canon" (and thereby should not be contradicted) what the people say is not.

As I said before: Case closed.

All this logic and sorcatic stuff is giving me a headache. I mean I just got my permit last month.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
OK...again...just for you.
The insane person says something...It's only true for the insane person ("Chair = Table"😉.
Anakin says something...It's only true for Anakin ("Anakin = more powerful than anyone else in the Council"😉.

And when Sio Bibble says something, it's only true for Sio Bibble. It's an expression of his personal oppinion as a acting character or simply that what Lucas wants him to say. If statements from characters are not necesseraly refering to an overall "truth" than it's only there personal oppinion.

Now that simply means if Sio Bibble says there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic that only means that Sio Bibble thinks there was no full scale war since the formation of the Republic. It doesn't mean that there realy was no full scale war.

And thereby you have solved you continuity problem. And also every other problem where the movies seem to contradict the EU or themselves. If anything the people in the movies say is just the "truth" from their own point of view it doesn't have to be "logical", "objective" or "based on facts". It's just their own thoughts and those can be contradicted. In the films as well as in the EU.

Wohoo...and you are philosophy major ? First off: The "socratic method" doesn't have anything to do with "argumentation" because it's a method for philosophical analyses. Maybe you simply missed that point.
The socratic method is sceptical because it begins with Socrates real or professed denial of the "truth" in any matter. That is also called "Socratic irony" a kind of scepticism that was maybe influenced by the Sophists with the difference that their scepticism was difinitive and final where Socrates is not.
In terms of conversation that method employs dialogue not only as a didactic device. Socrates was always searching for "truths" that all humans can agree and therefore Socrates proceeded to unfold such truths in discussions or by doing "question and answer". You just go on with criticism until a more adequate conception emerges. That can also be refered to as the maieutic method, an art of intellectual midwifery which overall goal is to give birth to other peoples ideas. You can also call that a dialectical method or the method of elenchus.
The socratic method relies on concepts (justice, moral and so on) and definitions as a precices definition of terms is the first step in a problem solving process. It's as well empirical or inductive (criticize definitions by reference to particular instances) as deductive (testing definition by drawing out it implications and deducing it's consequences).

And a method for analyses of "truth" is simply not useful for an argumentation since you can't "convince" somebody with it.

The "Advocatus Diaboli" or "promoter fidei" is a canon lawyer appointed by the catholic church to argue against canonization. It's a sophistic method (as it's difinitive and final denial) to look for "holes" in the given evidence. Now - as you see - I just have proven your view on what is "canon" wrong (actualy you have done that for yourself) since anything that people say in the movies can't be automaticaly considered as "canon". The events in the movies are "canon" (and thereby should not be contradicted) what the people say is not.

As I said before: Case closed.

The sad part is, I understood every word (S?)he said.

Me too. Nai is a better arguer by far.

eu is cannon,very cannon lucas sanctions all of it despite a lot of it being just plain stupid,after 4000 years there may not be evidence left behind or the wars may be beleived to be legend like in Lotor

History became legend
Legend became myth
And for two and a half thousand years the ring passed out of all knowledge....

sorry I just love the movies, as far as what that dude says Palpatine says the republic only stood for a thousand years, so in those thousand years which would be after the battle of ruusan the republic may have been re-formed, parts of its past blocked out for morale purposes or the guy could just be dumb and have forgotten about it.

Wow, I didn't think the Anomaly was smart enough to realize Nai Fohl pwned him.

LOL! you guys are funny.

when i said long ago that Nai Fohl was right about the EU. on the second page or something about this thread. so i really dont get what you are talking about.

just to rephrase, I was purposly giving my answers in a specific way in order to see if any of you would pick up that i had agreed with what Fohl was saying. Rex was the only one who picked up on this (by accident, i dunno)

OK...again...just for you.
The insane person says something...It's only true for the insane person ("Chair = Table"😉.
Anakin says something...It's only true for Anakin ("Anakin = more powerful than anyone else in the Council"😉.

And when Sio Bibble says something, it's only true for Sio Bibble. It's an expression of his personal oppinion as a acting character or simply that what Lucas wants him to say. If statements from characters are not necesseraly refering to an overall "truth" than it's only there personal oppinion.

Now that simply means if Sio Bibble says there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic that only means that Sio Bibble thinks there was no full scale war since the formation of the Republic. It doesn't mean that there realy was no full scale war.

And thereby you have solved you continuity problem. And also every other problem where the movies seem to contradict the EU or themselves. If anything the people in the movies say is just the "truth" from their own point of view it doesn't have to be "logical", "objective" or "based on facts". It's just their own thoughts and those can be contradicted. In the films as well as in the EU.

wrong, the attributes of the character have no barring on the words he speakes. Sio is not a real human being, he is a character in a script. therefore it is the script itself that the truth lies in. not the character.

do you understnad what i mean. "there has not been a full scale war since the formation of the republic" although it JUST SO HAPPENS Sio's character says this. it really makes no difference who said it. the actor has nothing to do with it, lucas is the writer, in essence, the script is his words. being delivered through characters he has invented. so, in essence, it is actually lucas that is saying what Sio says, even though Sio said it. understand? you are looking at SW still as a "story" im not looking at it in that light. i have gone past the acting, the characters and everything else, other then the words themselves. as the words themself is where the true meaning lies. and that is "there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic" nothing more, nothing less. that is what lucas has written, and thats what i means. you are overanalyzing this issue. words are words in this context, and those words are canon, and they mean what they mean, nothing more.

Wohoo...and you are philosophy major ? First off: The "socratic method" doesn't have anything to do with "argumentation" because it's a method for philosophical analyses. Maybe you simply missed that point.
The socratic method is sceptical because it begins with Socrates real or professed denial of the "truth" in any matter. That is also called "Socratic irony" a kind of scepticism that was maybe influenced by the Sophists with the difference that their scepticism was difinitive and final where Socrates is not.
In terms of conversation that method employs dialogue not only as a didactic device. Socrates was always searching for "truths" that all humans can agree and therefore Socrates proceeded to unfold such truths in discussions or by doing "question and answer". You just go on with criticism until a more adequate conception emerges. That can also be refered to as the maieutic method, an art of intellectual midwifery which overall goal is to give birth to other peoples ideas. You can also call that a dialectical method or the method of elenchus.
The socratic method relies on concepts (justice, moral and so on) and definitions as a precices definition of terms is the first step in a problem solving process. It's as well empirical or inductive (criticize definitions by reference to particular instances) as deductive (testing definition by drawing out it implications and deducing it's consequences).

And a method for analyses of "truth" is simply not useful for an argumentation since you can't "convince" somebody with it.

wow, whered you get this online definition? anyways, it is argumentation. just not in the traditional sense. and what you said is a long winded version of what i said anyways. i've studied it for a long time, i use it all the time, i know what it is, and how its used. so your text book style definition means nothing to me, as they are rarely correct anyways, since they generally miss the truth of what somehting actually is, by doing what you just did, over analizing. you must look at what Plato does when he uses this method, not what it looks like hes doing, or what a text definition says. and that simply is this (which i said before) he uses questions to induce a person to reason with themself on a particular issue or belief. he takes no personal stance on the issue, as he knows he does not know the answer. but he also knows that though the other person might think they know the answer, they in fact do not.

socrates very life was based upon him being the most wise person. (folktale) but he believed that he actually knew nothing, and the fact that others thought they knew something when in fact they did not, made him more wise then the rest of society. because he had realised that he knew absolutly nothing,

and that is what the socratic method actually is. proving to others that they know as much as you do, and that is absolutly nothing at all.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. " - Socrates

The "Advocatus Diaboli" or "promoter fidei" is a canon lawyer appointed by the catholic church to argue against canonization. It's a sophistic method (as it's difinitive and final denial) to look for "holes" in the given evidence. Now - as you see - I just have proven your view on what is "canon" wrong (actualy you have done that for yourself) since anything that people say in the movies can't be automaticaly considered as "canon". The events in the movies are "canon" (and thereby should not be contradicted) what the people say is not.

As I said before: Case closed.

no, the script is by lucas, the words of what lucas has written is canon, not the movie itself, as i have just said.

so no, case not closed.

Saying that the charachter has no influence on whether or not what they said is truth is a complete logical failure, If sidious said the sky is green and I'm a 2 foot dancing chicken would that make it true because lucas wrote it for him? Truth is absolute, the sky is blue whether or not sidious beleives it doesn't mean jack all, just because sio doesn't beleive there hasn't been a war since the forming of the republic doesn't mean it's true, the truth is there has been whether or not sio beleives this or what his opinion about it happening are doesn't change the fact that the absolute truth is that there have been some, on the grounds that eu IS cannon overseen by lucas himself.

Anomoly is trying to make us think he was smart all along, just playing dumb. Like he's some great actor. Darth Frobo has a better grasp of logic than Anomoly.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
LOL! you guys are funny.

when i said long ago that Nai Fohl was right about the EU. on the second page or something about this thread. so i really dont get what you are talking about.

just to rephrase, I was purposly giving my answers in a specific way in order to see if any of you would pick up that i had agreed with what Fohl was saying. Rex was the only one who picked up on this (by accident, i dunno)

wrong, the attributes of the character have no barring on the words he speakes. Sio is not a real human being, he is a character in a script. therefore it is the script itself that the truth lies in. not the character.

do you understnad what i mean. "there has not been a full scale war since the formation of the republic" although it JUST SO HAPPENS Sio's character says this. it really makes no difference who said it. the actor has nothing to do with it, lucas is the writer, in essence, the script is his words. being delivered through characters he has invented. so, in essence, it is actually lucas that is saying what Sio says, even though Sio said it. understand? you are looking at SW still as a "story" im not looking at it in that light. i have gone past the acting, the characters and everything else, other then the words themselves. as the words themself is where the true meaning lies. and that is "there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic" nothing more, nothing less. that is what lucas has written, and thats what i means. you are overanalyzing this issue. words are words in this context, and those words are canon, and they mean what they mean, nothing more.

wow, whered you get this online definition? anyways, it is argumentation. just not in the traditional sense. and what you said is a long winded version of what i said anyways. i've studied it for a long time, i use it all the time, i know what it is, and how its used. so your text book style definition means nothing to me, as they are rarely correct anyways, since they generally miss the truth of what somehting actually is, by doing what you just did, over analizing. you must look at what Plato does when he uses this method, not what it looks like hes doing, or what a text definition says. and that simply is this (which i said before) he uses questions to induce a person to reason with themself on a particular issue or belief. he takes no personal stance on the issue, as he knows he does not know the answer. but he also knows that though the other person might think they know the answer, they in fact do not.

socrates very life was based upon him being the most wise person. (folktale) but he believed that he actually knew nothing, and the fact that others thought they knew something when in fact they did not, made him more wise then the rest of society. because he had realised that he knew absolutly nothing,

and that is what the socratic method actually is. proving to others that they know as much as you do, and that is absolutly nothing at all.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. " - Socrates

no, the script is by lucas, the words of what lucas has written is canon, not the movie itself, as i have just said.

so no, case not closed.

What a pile of garbage... 😆

Daaaaaaaaaamn nigga! Anomaly, you say one thing and like 15 people show you up everytime! Just give it up man!

I think te issue here is to verufy if its really the Republic were talking about, Im really not sure but I think te republic as its known in the movies is like 1000 years old, and KOTOR is 3000 years before te movies, so maybe Sio Bibble (complete dumb character that can die for blasphemying against KOTOR´s continuity jajajajajaja) is talking about this "new" 1000 years old republic.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
LOL! you guys are funny.

when i said long ago that Nai Fohl was right about the EU. on the second page or something about this thread. so i really dont get what you are talking about.

just to rephrase, I was purposly giving my answers in a specific way in order to see if any of you would pick up that i had agreed with what Fohl was saying. Rex was the only one who picked up on this (by accident, i dunno)

wrong, the attributes of the character have no barring on the words he speakes. Sio is not a real human being, he is a character in a script. therefore it is the script itself that the truth lies in. not the character.

do you understnad what i mean. "there has not been a full scale war since the formation of the republic" although it JUST SO HAPPENS Sio's character says this. it really makes no difference who said it. the actor has nothing to do with it, lucas is the writer, in essence, the script is his words. being delivered through characters he has invented. so, in essence, it is actually lucas that is saying what Sio says, even though Sio said it. understand? you are looking at SW still as a "story" im not looking at it in that light. i have gone past the acting, the characters and everything else, other then the words themselves. as the words themself is where the true meaning lies. and that is "there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic" nothing more, nothing less. that is what lucas has written, and thats what i means. you are overanalyzing this issue. words are words in this context, and those words are canon, and they mean what they mean, nothing more.

wow, whered you get this online definition? anyways, it is argumentation. just not in the traditional sense. and what you said is a long winded version of what i said anyways. i've studied it for a long time, i use it all the time, i know what it is, and how its used. so your text book style definition means nothing to me, as they are rarely correct anyways, since they generally miss the truth of what somehting actually is, by doing what you just did, over analizing. you must look at what Plato does when he uses this method, not what it looks like hes doing, or what a text definition says. and that simply is this (which i said before) he uses questions to induce a person to reason with themself on a particular issue or belief. he takes no personal stance on the issue, as he knows he does not know the answer. but he also knows that though the other person might think they know the answer, they in fact do not.

socrates very life was based upon him being the most wise person. (folktale) but he believed that he actually knew nothing, and the fact that others thought they knew something when in fact they did not, made him more wise then the rest of society. because he had realised that he knew absolutly nothing,

and that is what the socratic method actually is. proving to others that they know as much as you do, and that is absolutly nothing at all.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. " - Socrates

no, the script is by lucas, the words of what lucas has written is canon, not the movie itself, as i have just said.

so no, case not closed.

So if everything in the movie's is true, then when Vader says he's going to kill Luke he is right? Wrong.

So that means that when Obi says Anakin is wise, that's right too? Wrong.

So that means when Grevious says he can handle Obi, it's true?
Wrong.

I can keep going on with this, but as you see, when someone says something in the movies, it is not automatically right. So that automatically defeats your only refute on the Politician being right.

And I still don't think that you get that Lucas looks at the EU, and if their is a problem with it, he calls it non canonical? Lucas controls EU, and says it's right, and since Lucas is God in the Star Wars Universe, I think he's right.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
wtf does that mean? "dig deeper"

the facts are all there, 'deeper digging' would do nothing, because there is nothing deeper.

No serousally keep digging, There IS more.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
LOL! you guys are funny.

I would say you are funny but basically you life seems to be very sad.

wrong, the attributes of the character have no barring on the words he speakes. Sio is not a real human being, he is a character in a script. therefore it is the script itself that the truth lies in. not the character.

do you understnad what i mean. "there has not been a full scale war since the formation of the republic" although it JUST SO HAPPENS Sio's character says this. it really makes no difference who said it. the actor has nothing to do with it, lucas is the writer, in essence, the script is his words. being delivered through characters he has invented. so, in essence, it is actually lucas that is saying what Sio says, even though Sio said it. understand? you are looking at SW still as a "story" im not looking at it in that light. i have gone past the acting, the characters and everything else, other then the words themselves. as the words themself is where the true meaning lies. and that is "there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic" nothing more, nothing less. that is what lucas has written, and thats what i means. you are overanalyzing this issue. words are words in this context, and those words are canon, and they mean what they mean, nothing more.

What a stupid view on literature and fiction. Since I already proved you view on "canon" wrong I won't argue about that anymore.

wow, whered you get this online definition?

Online definition ? Well...sad but true...I have a BA degree in philosophy. So I don't have to use google to enlight me.

anyways, it is argumentation. just not in the traditional sense. and what you said is a long winded version of what i said anyways. i've studied it for a long time, i use it all the time, i know what it is, and how its used. so your text book style definition means nothing to me, as they are rarely correct anyways, since they generally miss the truth of what somehting actually is, by doing what you just did, over analizing. you must look at what Plato does when he uses this method, not what it looks like hes doing, or what a text definition says. and that simply is this (which i said before) he uses questions to induce a person to reason with themself on a particular issue or belief. he takes no personal stance on the issue, as he knows he does not know the answer. but he also knows that though the other person might think they know the answer, they in fact do not.

Oh...great...I didn't know that Plato is Socrates. Plato is just inspired by Socrates but isn't actualy using the same method. You should know that being a major in philosophy.

socrates very life was based upon him being the most wise person. (folktale) but he believed that he actually knew nothing, and the fact that others thought they knew something when in fact they did not, made him more wise then the rest of society. because he had realised that he knew absolutly nothing,

and that is what the socratic method actually is. proving to others that they know as much as you do, and that is absolutly nothing at all.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. " - Socrates

You simply seem to have no idea what you're talking about. "Scio me nihil scire", as Socrates once said just implies that there is no certain knowledge that can be obtained. And convincing people that they know nothing is impossible. You being "specialized in argumentation" should know that.

no, the script is by lucas, the words of what lucas has written is canon, not the movie itself, as i have just said.

There are many situations where something that is said by persons is a direct contradiction to the things that happen in the movies. I don't know why you don't want to accept that. If you need another example:

PALPATINE: "In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years."

Ooops....the Galactic Empire will last for ten thousand of years. It's canon ! THE OLD TRILOGY IS CONTRADICTING THE PREQUELS !!! 🙄

so no, case not closed.

"Nosce te ipsum", wise guy.

all right this is how it really goes down. master camael runs in and cuts up all the jedi and all the sith and becomes the only jedi in existance. the wars never happened, you imagined them.

Nai, you have earned a promotion. Go forth and preach the word, brutha.

Oooteenie!

wow..... way to go Nai

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
wrong, the attributes of the character have no barring on the words he speakes. Sio is not a real human being, he is a character in a script. therefore it is the script itself that the truth lies in. not the character.

do you understnad what i mean. "there has not been a full scale war since the formation of the republic" although it JUST SO HAPPENS Sio's character says this. it really makes no difference who said it. the actor has nothing to do with it, lucas is the writer, in essence, the script is his words. being delivered through characters he has invented. so, in essence, it is actually lucas that is saying what Sio says, even though Sio said it. understand? you are looking at SW still as a "story" im not looking at it in that light. i have gone past the acting, the characters and everything else, other then the words themselves. as the words themself is where the true meaning lies. and that is "there was no full scale war since the formation of the republic" nothing more, nothing less. that is what lucas has written, and thats what i means. you are overanalyzing this issue. words are words in this context, and those words are canon, and they mean what they mean, nothing more.

Palpatine in episode 2 clearly says: "I will not let this Republic that has stood for a thousand years be split in two." So in this case Sio Bibble is right and since the formation of the Republic 1000 years ago there hasn't been a full scale war. Before that there have been many wars and the Sith have ruled the galaxy at one point until the reformation of the Republic 1000 years prior to episode 1.

Originally posted by General Bondius
I think te issue here is to verufy if its really the Republic were talking about, Im really not sure but I think te republic as its known in the movies is like 1000 years old, and KOTOR is 3000 years before te movies, so maybe Sio Bibble (complete dumb character that can die for blasphemying against KOTOR´s continuity jajajajajaja) is talking about this "new" 1000 years old republic.