http://web.ask.com/fr?u=http%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Ffreewill%2F&s=a7&bu=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.ask.com%2Fweb%3Fq%3Dfree%2Bwill%26o%3D0%26page%3D1&q=free+will&o=0&qt=0&ma=An%20overview%20of%20theories%20of%20free%20will%20and%20the%20problems%20that%20they%20raise.%20By%20Timothy%20O'Connor.&mt=Free%20Will&mb=1e265e4ec32de5454029ac8b6ac7bbe7
DS's whole cracking down thing doesn't work. No matter what steps you take, a whole galaxy worth of people is too much too "crack down" on all at once. whe Tarkin blew up Alderaan, the populace woke up to the Empire's tyranny. With such a (sighs) "crackdown" you'd be looking at Alderaan times a 100.
And since it's a movie, you just can't remove the destiny thing. If you say it doesn't matter much--------the Force isn't real either. Nor is the Deathstar or Star Destroyers. The destiny hullibuloo means something....Ah well.
Correction:
The destruction of Alderaan was relatively minor in a galaxy with millions of star systems. Similar acts of destruction had been wrought before by other means, and were relatively minor. If anything, the destruction of Alderaan would cause rebels with weak conviction to falter and those with strong conviction to become fanatical. Either way, it does not neccessarily 'wake up' the galaxy to the Empire's tyranny, when things such as demonstator massacres and mass slavery have produced a relatively small rebellion (That could field an armada barely adequate to take on the small portion of the Imperial fleet over Endor). Also, you're assuming that in a galaxy of over sixty million species has a relatively uniform morality code too.
Second, destiny only applies to the movie if you're considering the author's intent behind -everything-. If this is the case, then the only reasonable answer for anything is the author's intent, not how it was on-screen nor anything that would contradict factually, such as in sociology or science. If you're looking at it objectively, the idea of destiny cannot apply in all scenarios, because the variables are all different and thus the outcome will be different.
Retort to correction--kinda---
I just meant that Alderaan was only ever known as a peaceful world with no war like or military intent. For the Empire to destroy the world without reason is not something even they can cover up.
The galaxy(not the WHOLE thing of course) would look at the Empire in a different way. They knew it wasn't the organization that had everybody's best intentions at heart, but they thought it wasn't THAT evil. Too blow up such a world as Alderaan(who was SECRETLY supplieing the Rebellion) would create a "wake up" among people to what the Empire truly is. An evil, oppressive gov't that would do anything to gain and retain power. Like the Alderaan situation.
Apparently, when news of Alderaan spread, sympathy towards the Alliance increased, there were more defections, more rebel recruits volunteering than there had been prior to it's destruction. So, in essence, it was that one planet kicking the bucket that created a domino effect which lead the destruction of the Empire---eventually.
To the destiny whatsits...All I got is......it's Sci-fi. It's done and over with, and destiny is real in it, and plays a part. No matter how much you can argue destiny in real life, even with author's intentions, when looking at the movie and debating about the movie plot, you gotta let whats mentioned in it take credit.
I don't think you get the whole idea about destiny.
Destiny hinges on future choices and consequences. It does not just appear regardless of what choices are made or what consequences. If you have a torch, you can make fire. But if the torch is doused, or you have to take it underwater, or in a heavy rainstorm, etc.... you cannot have the same effect because the situation has changed.
In the events as they occured, Vader killed the emperor. Why? He made a conscious choice and opted his son over his lord. If you remove say, the element of Luke ever being born or at least, trained to be a jedi, would this have happened? It depends on your viewpoint.
If you argue the author's intent (Or in this case, GL's intent) you would say yes, because GL believes in and incorporated the destiny issue into his series. That is, if GL believes the destiny and prophecy HAD to occur, regardless of how.
If you argue objectively, you have to say that there is nothing to prove in such prophecies, since they can only be reliable if they are observations by a being that can observe future events before they occur (i. e. a being outside of time itself) Thus, this shows that while in a linear fashion a prophecy predicts future events, it is actually totally dependant on future events for a prediction. There is no other reasonable way to see the future, since every being in the series sees time as we do, that is, in a linear fashion. They cannot have absolute knowledge of the future unless it comes from an outside source, and this source in turn relies on seeing the future events as they happened, not the future events relying on the outside source.
So in other words, if the sitation changed, the destiny does too. Period.
And about Alderaan, yes, the planet was a poor choice to destroy because of its nonmilitary beliefs, but of course, Tarkin felt he had a real bargaining chip there. He had Leia, threatened her homeworld for information, then blew the sucker up to solidify his power. Trust me, if the first Death Star hadn't been destroyed by some lucky jedi farmboy, the Empire's grip on the galaxy would have been damn near absolute.
Yeah...The Alderaan etc..Oh I know, but I was talking about that it WAS a bad idea. If he hadn't....whew.
And the destiny. I know what it is, and I can't argue your point about it, it's valid.
It's just that...it's a movie. I stand firm in saying that. I only say that in a negative way if there is an obvious loophole or plot-gap, but the destiny thing is a matter of if you believe in it or not, in real life that is. But in a movie, (a Sci-fi one no less) if that's what it says happened, than it happened, unless it's based on a true story then they can't alter it.
But if they say THAT'S the Force-then it is. If they say you can travel 100 000 times the speed of light, then they can. But only IN THE MOVIE. And since this topic is relevant only in THIS particular movie, than THAT'S what destiny is. Otherwise, you take away from the whole story. It's such things as GL's MOVIE perception of destiny that adds to the excitement of the plot. He may not actually believe that's what destiny is like, but it went with his story, and that's what we see.
And so you are essentially in support of GL's intentions (assuming you understand them) and you are arguing that even if things were to change (And again, this is speculation, so it would not be the same movie; it would be a "what if" scenario) that GL's intent would be that the destiny would be the same? This doesn't make sense.
If you want to hold a belief on something, then it's just that- a belief. If you want to debate and argue something that -isn't- subjective, you must find a common ground, using logic. A logical conclusion is objective; you cannot say that all dogs are cute and Shep is a dog, but I think he's ugly so he's not cute... That's ridiculous. Logic must be formed and shaped so that the conclusion makes sense and isn't in itself a product of a subjective idea. For example, the movie doesn't revolve around a parody of past or present events, even if I think it does. Now, if I could prove that it does with observations that can really only support my conclusion, then I might be on to something, and can put forth the idea. But me "thinking" does not equal a stance or debate on something.
Now, if you want to debate this, then let's debate using a common ground. If you want to hold an opinion, then hold an opinion. But you can't have both.
Mostly it is just my opinion and I began this only to try to defend my intelligence.
All I have to say is, and I am repeating myself, it's a movie.(sighs)
If the whole Anakin vs. the Sith happened in real life and Anakin killed Palpatine, then the destiny thing would be easily argueable.
But, in this movie(Sci-fi) GL wrote a story about the Force, spaceships, Intergalactic Empires and lasers and lightsabers. Really, only spaceships and lasers are feasible in the long run.
GL also created his own version of destiny. Where if the FORCE-SENSITIVE user received a destiny, THEN IT HAPPENED. Why? Becasue of the FORCE. Which is not real. How can GL's "Force-destiny" if you will, be real if there is no FORCE? There is no Star Wars in which it can happen.
The reason we watch and follow this fantasy galaxy is becasue it entertains and interests us, the fans of GL's work and his imagination.
Originally posted by Lord Janus
Yes, but if you remove the set storyline of the saga and introduce more variables, like DS is suggesting, the destiny thing falters. Destiny relies on a set future. If the future changes, destiny changes, because individuals' choices change to meet the variables.
Anakin fell to the Dark Side, and he still achieved his destiny. I see no faltering.
To Alderaan's destruction:
Alderaan a minor world? It was one of the founding worlds of the Galactic Republic, and a figurehead of the Rebellion! I highly doubt it was 'minor' that it was completely destroyed, being that it was a 'founding father' and it was entirely peaceful.
I don't particularly like 'What If?' scenarios, but it seems to me that Vader has destiny backing him. After putting on the suit, I think he would become mince-meat for any Jedi still remaining, despite his prowess and power. Sure, he can lose (he lost to Luke), but he didn't bite the dust until fulfilling his destiny.
Well, I'm just saying... What's the point of ever leaving the movie forums and comment on speculation threads if you can't break from Vader's destiny being stuck in your head? It just seems to be wasted effort.
It'd be like me going into Matrix chat and telling them that Superman could take Neo, and then they tell me no one can take Neo because "He's the One".
That kinda make any sense?