Originally posted by Nephthys
Since when was it fear? The Supreme Chancellor ordered them to do it. They just didn't refuse. I'm just saying that it was arguably a sensible option.Edit: These holonet videos are awesome.
Sensible and moral aren't the same thing. You seem to be avoiding any moral relevance in the actions on both sides and applying a level of pragmatism and historical fallacy to events instead of analyzing them.
The fact that the Jedi felt the need to drive the Sith to what they believed was extinction at the behest of the chancellor implies that they feared the existence of Sith regardless of their actual threat level to the Republic. And we know that the threat level was null because the Republic had the strategic advantage, much of the Sith lords of the Council and their fleets were destroyed, and the people leaderless (as if they weren't already fractured normally). This is like sandblasting a soupcracker.
Even if you say they aren't reasonably afraid and this stemmed from instead some passionless idea of following a mandate, please allow me to re-educate you:
Originally posted by psmith81992
You know Janus, what I do keep hearing from you are certain key words like "rehabilitation", and a force user being the product of his/her environment. I know this isn't a discussion about personal responsibility and punishment vs. rehabilitation but damn.
I'm not saying the Sith could actually be rehabilitated, but it seems like a more logical thing to do than simply murder them outright. We already know that they could neutralize the Force powers of the more potent offenders, rather quickly I might add. And they had tactical/strategic/numerical superiority. So their genocide has no moral defense from what I can see, unless it's a kind of retribution for the brief losses they had during Sadow's For Me It Was Tuesday Afternoon invasion.
Also, regarding the environment, I'm not making a definitive argument here, but I am starting to see correlations between Sith doctrine and the classic megalomaniac Dark Sider. We know that both the Sith and the Jedi routinely round up Force users, basically impress them into their service, fill their heads with ideals, tenets and laws, and tell them what is right and wrong. The idea of questioning either viewpoint is never approved on either side.
There's a difference between conventional and post-conventional moral reasoning, and both the Jedi and the Sith aren't past the conventional level at all.
--
Merchant, kudos on the reference. I have never before heard of this guy. Also, your sig image is broken. You may want to download the image to your PC and then upload it to KMC's signature image system so it'll host.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I personally don't buy into what Lumiya was selling. All we know about Vectivus comes from her and shes a known liar and has good reason not to be truthful.
Well, if there were amiable, or relatively ambivalent Sith, of a more secular or scholarly bent, who would have heard of them? They don't erect monuments, build tombs, and burn holocrons for the underachievers.
Originally posted by Nephthys
"Dark Side" isn't really a misnomer. It is literally an evil force that when you use it amplifies your negative emotions and corrupts your thought process.
Evil is subjective as someone pointed out, the dark side can lead to evil because it is the very fulcrum of the concept of destruction. But one can destroy to rebuild, like breaking a fractured bone to set it right. So yeas plenty of Jedi use the dark side for Good - Celeste Morne, Kyle Katarn, Jaden Kor and even Luke occasionally have used it in the service of the light i.e. the preservation of free thinking life.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, if there were amiable, or relatively ambivalent Sith, of a more secular or scholarly bent, who would have heard of them? They don't erect monuments, build tombs, and burn holocrons for the underachievers.
I wouldn't call them underachievers, merely less egocentric.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Evil is subjective..... in real life. In Star Wars though it is a thing that actually exists.
You kind of ignored my earlier post, Neph. You're applying absolute definitions of evil based not on EU, but on GL's own interpretations, which I might add are entirely limited to the scope of Jedi versus Sith in G-Canon. The reason why I am harping on this is because you've introduced the topic and then decided apparently to not engage in the discussion beyond assuming a preconceived position of absolutist morality. The least you could do is contribute to the discussion with an open-mind, since this isn't a versus match.
As outside observers, we can still apply our own moral standards and use non-GL-defined moral arguments to measure actions and motivations in the mythos. This is especially important because the assumption here is that anything relating to the dark side is evil, not just potentially evil or a normal part of the duality that is being a sentient human being.
Case in point - every sentient has the ability to do great good and great evil. With very rare exceptions (Vitiate stands out most), none are predisposed to evil without being exposed to it, as we are ourselves exposed to our own cultural norms. Leaving even Force users aside, "evil", which is relative to the beholder, is possible in all sentients. What makes them unique is how they are raised, how they learn to adapt to their influences, and their ability to reach a higher moral and thinking levels.
A lord or knight in the Middle Ages might think killing in the name of his liege -regardless of the victim- is correct because of conventional moral thinking that basically says "evil is subjective to my culture/lord's view/religion/duty". This is not at all different from what the Jedi and Sith practice. Neither of them recognizes universal sentient rights beyond the strict tenets they already hold, and the Jedi do not exercise doing the right thing if it means violating these traditions. That's why they did nothing during the Mandalorian Wars. Even if, in retrospect that seemed "wise" (which I disagree with, millions were dying due to inaction), their caution-induced apathy is not putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few, nor is it recognizing inherent moral worth of the victims who need protecting.
Or, to avoid being too verbose and losing you with my tangents, let me be clearer:
1. We know that both the Jedi and the Sith, as of the eras in which we have lots of information, pretty much indoctrinate their followers. They have tenets, codes, laws, hierarchies, pecking orders, etc. and they do not care for deviation. Even the Sith, who swap leadership consistently, have an underlying foundation of values that perpetuates their legacy and their teachings.
2. We know that the earliest Jedi, and fringe groups dabble with powers and feelings the Jedi/Sith call the "Dark Side", but they do not appear to be corrupted people beyond reason. If anything, what marks them is a sense of different values and priorities, and equilibrium. This feeds my assumption that the "Dark Side/Light Side" are often used and interpreted by primary groups as extremes rather than equal parts of the same individual. Revan, who uses both without signs of corruption in his novel, identifies himself as both Jedi and Sith; he is in a sense both and neither, suffering a kind of identity confusion since neither idealistic code can mesh with the other. It would be more appropriate to say that he is a good-hearted individual who follows a more neutral path than either the Jedi or the Sith because he is not an extremist.
3. Feelings which lead to the Dark Side, such as anger, fear, jealousy, or even love and attachment are perfectly normal in moderation. The problem becomes that the Jedi stress stoicism and suppressing these emotions while the Sith stress embracing them wholesale, without consideration for moderation, and become emotional individuals without any real moral center.
Evil is subjective IRL and in SW mythos. The question is, should we examine the concept of Dark Side/Light Side outside of the viewpoints of the two primary opposing Orders? And the answer should be "yes". Otherwise, we aren't exercising any critical thinking.
What a lot of this seems to boil down to is people not liking how the Jedi were portrayed in TOR, which is more a case of uneven writing than anything else.
In pure GL terms, though, this is pretty simple. The Jedi are good guys and the Sith are bad; any story written that tries to break that rule has pretty much missed the point of Star Wars. That being so- no, it's not at all possible to use the Dark Side for good purpose. It's a fundamentally destructive force that buggers up everything involved with it.
The EU has gone down routes subject to other interpretations, though I honestly don't see the point of doing that in Star Wars. There are countless other settings more suited to such explorations and no end of ways to come up with good stories even within a simple moral framework.
Well if you want to discount the GL view in the EU that's fine. I don't think it should be dismissed, though, and implying that GL's ideas don't apply to the EU is misleading, not only because all of his works are in the highest part of the EU canon, but also simply because he's the spiritual heart of the whole Star Wars concept, and everyone is starting from where GL was at one point when they write Star Wars. I don't think you can address any such fundamental issue in Star Wars without considering his view, even if it is just in commenting how far one interpretation has differed from it.
More to the point, you have to name an interpretation or the argument fairly much becomes pointless, because different parts of the EU have presented the Jedi in different ways. Furthermore, as I said above, a lot of how the Jedi are shown in TOR is not down to some great philosophical presentation of how the Jedi are but really just down to iffy writing on some quests; it's not consistent with other parts of itself, even.
👆 Great points Ush.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You kind of ignored my earlier post, Neph.
I'm not ignoring it, its just a post that would require time to respond to and I didn't want to at that time. I was just firing off a one-line response to Allankles before I went off to play Lara Croft Torture Simulator Tomb Raider.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well if you want to discount the GL view in the EU that's fine. I don't think it should be dismissed, though, and implying that GL's ideas don't apply to the EU is misleading, not only because all of his works are in the highest part of the EU canon, but also simply because he's the spiritual heart of the whole Star Wars concept, and everyone is starting from where GL was at one point when they write Star Wars. I don't think you can address any such fundamental issue in Star Wars without considering his view, even if it is just in commenting how far one interpretation has differed from it.
But different authors and writers inject different viewpoints, biases, and meanings into their works. If you are attempting to mesh them all together by simply invalidating anything that doesn't meet one man's vision, that might make a lot of sense from a continuity standpoint (even if it's a sloppy way to manage canon), it does nothing for the analyses of the readers. Again, we're allowed to apply our own interpretations of the evidence we're provided, and using a holistic approach in EU is a lot more sensible than just ignoring whatever doesn't fit GL's ideal.
This is especially key since GL and LFL have explicitly stated before that EU is its own world, subject to the visions of others, goes off on tangents, and cannot be directly managed by the man in charge. If you had to simply resolve the canon issue and involve only C-Canon EU, this argument is still valid.
More to the point, you have to name an interpretation or the argument fairly much becomes pointless, because different parts of the EU have presented the Jedi in different ways.
Right. Marriage is not always forbidden, battle armor was once the norm, one era commits genocide, another simply seeks peace or exiles its foes. But you can't just say "Oh, it's inconsistent. I'll ignore the problem and not analyze it beyond "GL is law"; that's just lazy. If we wanted to reaffirm canon, there's other places to do that.
Furthermore, as I said above, a lot of how the Jedi are shown in TOR is not down to some great philosophical presentation of how the Jedi are but really just down to iffy writing on some quests; it's not consistent with other parts of itself, even.
I'm not sure on your level of EU exposure, but the Jedi are portrayed a lot of different ways, and their core beliefs and moral stances seem to fluctuate, even if slightly. I wouldn't single TOR out any more than TOTJ era, or during the Hundred-Year Darkness, etc.
Originally posted by Nephthys
👆 Great points Ush.I'm not ignoring it, its just a post that would require time to respond to and I didn't want to at that time. I was just firing off a one-line response to Allankles before I went off to play
Lara Croft Torture SimulatorTomb Raider.
You never want to do it when I want to do it.
Debate I mean.
SM, I doubt anyone is saying "GL is law". But you have to admit that his opinion carries a hell of a lot of weight, since he is the goddamn creator of Star Wars. Its like, you wouldn't dismiss the opinions of the Founding Fathers in regards to the Constitution. Yeah, the world has changed a lot since then and.... I guess you could disagree with their interpretation of the words they ****ing wrote (lol) but they still actually wrote it? So maaaaybe their opinion on it is important?