Views on Jedi

[CSI]

JM12 got a point. I think Jedi are guardian of peace, not soldiers. I admit Jedi's activities have lots of flaws, but I still accept it and use it to guide our activities. But the problem is, Jedi and Sith are all Force Users, but their aspect is different--Jedi focuses on peaceful solution, but Sith focuses on...

I call it Aggressive Negotiations!

[Totenkopf]

Kreia may be of the opinion that the Repubic is merely a shell that surrounds the Jedi, but she is a Force-User and that is likely a bias. The truth may be closer to symbiosis. Kotor and the prequels drive the point that one cannot survive without the other. If the Republic falls (as it does in the prequels), the Jedi are doomed. If the Jedi are destroyed (Kotor), the Republic is equally doomed.

 

Ah, the jedi are like white blood cells....

 

In a case like that, the slaughter of the younglings was an atrocity, but being that far around the bend, he could have thought of it as freeing them from a slavery worse than death.

 

So Anakin = Hanharr, at least in that respect....

[Darth Avlectus]

Frankly the way I see it the sun must rise and fall as the night. Is it not the same with the force? I think it to be so.

 

The jedi raise a few questions to everybody I'm sure. At one point they allow marriage. Then not. Then with luke and mara, it's okay again?

 

Tell me that isn't either "just going with the flow" and adapting to the times, or playing with semantics.

 

--Though I do realize that not all jedi agree and not all sith agree.

 

I agree: Jolee and Kyle have it right. (They both remind me of my father, if that gives you any idea as to my upbringing..... In fact, I'd say Jan's personality reminds me of my mother.)

 

As far as love, if done responsibly, it probably will come out okay in the end. Sure, it beckons danger, uncertainty, and tragedy ...especially for force sensitives, but so it does for ordinary people all the same. However, just because things are fraught with uncertainty, tragedy, and danger doesn't mean it should not be done...of course in many cases it isn't a choice; just happens. Fate, I suppose.

Still, jedi have tried to deny themselves this.

 

While that works for those taken at birth, if they hope to be successful with those not taken from birth, a bit of change will be needed--without alienating!

 

A certain responsibility aspect is that if the one you love is going to die and you live, that's no reason to make the rest of existence suffer. Remember them so they are never really gone, but don't dwell on it to illness or worse, make your peace and move on. If you can't do that, then why not go with your love--die with your lover?

If you can save your love, then, by all means, do so.

 

I don't care to get into pre-destination arguments or oversimplifying it to "it's the will of the force"; My opinion: In the film, padme's death was from heartbreak. Anakin did wish to save her life, but he also had a lust for power in the other part of his life and she could not live with that.

How do I know this? How could I (or anybody else) NOT?!?!?! Use your heart AND your head.

 

So far as the good and the bad, it is what it is. Jedi and Sith have their polarities, but I think that is of popular view. The tables could turn the other way, you know. The powers of good can be used for evil and it works the other way around as well.

 

I'm sort of grey, neutral. That can be achieved one of 4 ways: indescision, extremes, ambivalence, or an oscillating combination of the 3. I must also be careful so that a void of nothingness does not envelop me. Nothingness is absolutely, well, nothing and nonexistence--which cannot be, nor can it (correctly) sensed or analyzed by our world of existing and dare I say somethingness--everythingness. Beyond actual is possible, beyond possible is probable vs improbable, beyond that is forever. Where the trouble lies in the probability vs. improbability, it creates a void 'like' nothingness, destruction happens in the world of everythingness.

 

Therefore I am not at all surprised that a character such as Nihilus can consume the whole universe if he desires, yet as fate and the force intertwine, someone who is similar in such respect of a void can come about and easily crush him.

 

However the burden is now on the similar one (exile) to not become what he (or she) has just anihlated. (That's a rather symbolic of life if you really think about it!) That is if nihilus can olny die by the exile's hand.

I've heard just as many who are convinced that it is not that way at all--that any averege-joe-jedi-nobody could defeat him as well.

 

 

But I digress:

In truth, choices and decisions form who we are.

 

I can find truth in both teachings...and flaws. It's finding the ACTUAL balance between the two that counts; where they both could be true and not contradict each other.

 

Without conflict, for example, is it truly possible to find happiness or purpose? Is there truly anything worth experiencing without overcoming obstacles of conflict? Conflict--AND what we learn from it is important as well as preserving peace. Conflict is also a natural part of life. Personally I feel it and its result is the point of life. As well as serving existence in some way.

 

On some of these points I have been objective and others subjective. I'll admit that much. But, who is anybody to tell me I'm wrong? Who am I to tell them they're wrong?

 

That's the way GTA:SWcity views the world right now. Before going to bed...G'nite!

[Allronix]

As for marriage and family - well, things have waxed and waned on Jedi dogma. Prior to Exar Kun's War, no one so much as raised an eyebrow at Nomi Sunrider. She was a Jedi's widow with a small daughter who became Jedi in her own right. The Qel-Droma boys were not separated, but their Jedi mom knew that she could not be objective training them. So, for MOST of the Order's history, families were allowed, just as married priests were allowed until the 6th century.

 

It was only AFTER Exar Kun's War that we start seeing the crackdowns we get in KOTOR, and even then it wasn't as bad as the prequels. Krynda Draay from the KOTOR comics had a grown son, for example. And the restrictions we see in the prequels were a reactionary answer to Bane's purge. It seems that when the Sith come in and tear up the Order, the Jedi react out of terror in the aftermath, trying to prevent the next war, but instead cranking out brittle Padawans instead. Gotta give Luke credit for breaking the cycle - but a lot of that credit can also land with Han Solo. After all, YOU want to be the guy telling Han "No, you can't marry my sister?"

[JediMaster12]

Ah fear. It can inspire the most unspeakable reactions amongst us. That is what the Jedi suffered with the Great Hyperspace war and the war of Exar Kun and so forth. Fear drives the unthinkable and it can be crippling. With the prequels, we get a void of all emotion and such and yet when the end of the Republic is near, it showed again. Of course with destruction there is cynicism.

 

I admit that I have light sided tendencies but for the most part I am grey. Like Jolee, both extremes annoy me and yet I can she when I have to use the ends justify the means clause. Once again, the whole base evolves around choice. We have free will and a moral compass but it doesn't make you go that direction.

[SilentScope001]

Alright. For the sake of debate (as well as presenting my view of the Dark Side...)

 

To me, all feelings and beliefs are very irrational. They represent people's desires, and it intervenes with people's ability to make rational, sane desicions. They represent irrationality, and in some case, insanity.

 

Love, fear, happiness, sadness, they all are emotions. And it is these emotions that cloud your ability to make a desicion that is logical and correct. You need to see things in a detached light, otherwise you will become biased and make the WRONG desicion.

 

Suppose: A wants C. B wants C. A has a legal claim to C. So, A deserves C. BUT...you hate A and you love B (either as a family member, or as a "signficant other").

 

Don't say that you won't side with B, because you most likely will. Favoritisim is very common and likely in this real world, and most likely in this false world.

 

And if you embrace the LS and basically say, "Sorry, B. I love you, but I love the Light Side more..." then you are saying your love for B is outweighed by the devotion to the LS. What if your love for B outweighed your love for law and order? Congragulations, your effort let B urusup C!

 

And what if you neither like or dislike A or B? Then, since A has a natural claim to C, A therefore gets C. It is only when you have that love with B and hate with A that causes this clear cut situation to becomes cloudly...but if you do not have this cloud, volia! This complicated situation becomes a lot clearer and a lot easier.

 

I side with the Old Jedi Conseratives that attachments lead to the Dark side, because you would be putting what YOU want over what The Force and all that is good and just. Jolee should have killed off his wife, and he knew it, that why he exiled himself from the Jedi Order while the Old Jedi Conseratives spared him. By letting his wife live, he indirectly was responsible for killing off many, many Jedi. Had he not loved his wife, Jolee would kill him like he would kill any old Sith, and those Jedi would not have to be killed...

 

Of course, the Old Jedi Conseratives lived in constant fear and hate of the Dark Side, and this hate and fear did interfere with their desicion to deterimine what was right and what was wrong. In essence, they did fall to the Dark Side. However, this does not mean you just go and say, "You know what, have attachments with EVERYONE!" That would be just so stupid. Just look at the recent wars between the Solo familes and the Skywalker familes.

 

The Sith, for the most part, do not have the feeling of love. But they do have passion, hate, unconsisus fear, etc. which interferes with their ability to make rational descions, but, in return, receives "unlimited power!" The Old Jedi Conseratives also had these feelings, but possibly did not embrace them as much as the Sith.

 

The key to resolving this delimma (meaning what I think is a solution to the problem, but knowing full well that if it gets implemented in the Star Wars universe, the system will collaspe and prove to be a complete and utter failure thanks to George Lucas)...is to acknowledge the Dark Side within all of us, but attempt to get rid of it. Do not embrace the attachments you have, and try whatever you can to isolate the attachments that you have. That way, you can logically make desicions instead of irrationally giving into your desires.

 

Of course, maybe I am wrong. Atris did mention "At times I wonder what would happen if we all would be stripped of the Force, if we would we truly be Jedi or Sith...or simply human." Plus, with the Disciple/Visas speech talking of the glories of being human, prehaps I am not giving enough credit to irrational feelings. Prehaps the Dark Side may actually serve the path of enlightment, and I am being blind to it. I would also note that my alignment is Grey/Dark.

 

Still, here lies the idea.

[JediMaster12]

Well the one thing that separates us from all other things is our ability to rationalize. It's what makes us human. A dog can't reason any more than a mouse can. The old masters knew this and knew that rationality can be clouded by personal feelings and emotions. To have non attachment is detrimental to humans because we are social beings. We cannot function very well alone. Society shows us that we constantly seek companionship with other people. I am not saying that all emotions are bad but they have the potential to become bad.

[Darth Avlectus]

I actually see that too much detatchment is practically the same as too much attatchment. It can only mean disaster. You may forget the ones who care the most about you. Ignore everyone. Forget why you live. Or THAT you live. ...I wonder if this was another reason for why nihilus was, the way he was?

Sure, if one lived a totally placid and insipid life void of any color and meaning (which is quite possible--though *pathetic*) I suppose nothing could happen.

If there were absolutely no level of attatchment in jedi whatsoever, how could they form an order, much less hold the galaxy together as community? They could not. Nobody could. I would agree that control over this attatchment/detachment--force sensitive or not--is best. It is a continuum so you're either one or the other. The center is moderation.

Sith have a level of detatchment, seemingly from loyalty and being a people of their word. Despite all their passion and attatchment. They embrace a large view of the force--completely corrupted too.

 

Yeah I agree emotions in extreme can be bad--since I was a naturally angry child (I think it may be due to a neurological imbalance), now at 22, I have grey hairs sprouting. I know it isn't unusual--but having other premature health problems is not good. I can attest, the dark side is powerful, but it sure takes a toll on you. I'm center neutral. Not indifferent, I do honorable things, I do nice things, but I seem to counteract them. That's how a neutral is achived through extreme opposites. I am a neutral who does not mind the extremes when it can enact necessary change. Of course, the opposites can be brought down in their intensity (less stressful for sure).

 

One person who IMO was the closes thing on earth to a jedi was Nikola Tesla. Tesla once said some very profound things about health, not the least of which: "The solution lies noth with abstnence, but with moderation." In regard to Alchohol, Gambling, Stimulants, Gluttany, etc. Frankly, it's true with anything.

He was the man who invented AC. He also made many predictions about technology and wireless communications...in the late 1800s mind you. An eccentric fellow to be sure. However, He lived to be 78, when most people in his heyday only lived to their 40s and 50s. --His attachment was to his beloved pidgeons, despite the fact he was what many attractive women at the time called handsome. And his genius made him even more highly sought after. If anybody can control lightning without hate--he could. Though I'm sure he'd like to pop a few people for mispelling his name!

 

At any rate, pride *can lead to* arrogance. They are not one and the same. It could be said that by the very fact that the jedi hold a code is pride on behalf of jedi. A pride that dissuades arrogance.

It is my experience that, however humble and disciplined, after awhile, any intellegent being will become a little self-riteous about anything... even about denying self riteousness... It just goes to show how careful we all must be in our daily conduct to avoid unbalance of our life.

 

I never said anything about denying Han from marrying Leia...?

 

 

Somebody is using sure using the straw-man fallacy!: I certainly never said have attachments with everyone--there are some that we'd all do better without. Other times, the detatchment method just won't work--there needs to be some kind of training for the relationships that *must* happen. And declaring such a thing--though kind of brutal-- is a good way of not only getting otherwise pent-up stuff off of chests, but helps those in a position to see past where the 2 potential attatch-ees may not, to do something should problems arise. If they damn themselves, then so be it.

Depends on the exact issue and case, it does, who I'd side with. That isn't to say I have selective or highly liberal views. I'm just really picky before making my decision. If attachments can be done responsibly without ruining the existence around you, and you can remain objective enough to do the right thing in the end, then is it wrong? OF course, some don't believe that can ever BE love. I guess that responsibility means even killing off the one you love if things are that bad. Some can't always see where their devotion lies MORE. Others Can.

I suppose that's why others can't have any lasting relationship.

One thing that I can tell you is that any relationship based on commonalities first willl be more inflexible than one on differences first.

 

Also, conflict is inevitable. Who is to say that if the families had never happened that the skywalker twins and han wouldn't have fought bitterly eventually? Remember how it all started? The people you least expect to become friends with bacome your longest time best friends--while those you most expect to have around as friends will find their way away from you... Not always, but usually.

I'm an example: I had to fall-in with some dude who was in mental health, I thought he was a nutcase--the world is doomed if he ever reproduced. I wnated nothing to do with him. Since then, my 'better' friends have all dissapeared, and now I'm the uncle-never-had to dude's "nightmare" offspring. Dude and I are better and better friends all the time than my other friends ever were. We still have fights and arguments. We kicked each others' ass more than we could count. It is your resolve that truly matters. Weak people in this regard should not have relationships. Period. Force powers or not...

As for your ABC argument, point taken, but that's not reality for every family member/significant other relationship. Maybe overwhelming majority. It isn't *always* true though.

False world? And just what do *you* call real? You could call anything a false world or a real world, that doesn't make it so.

My analogy of light and dark: too far in either direction and you are blind. I'm speaking of the symbolic relationship between literally and metaphorically.

SilentScope you have points that are worhty of attention I'll say that much. Stripped of the force? What about your reality apart from SW and the computers?--There's your reality without using the force. The only difference I see for the force users is it's much harder to balance--but it *can* be done. All logic is true, but not all of the truth is logical. Indeed, attatchment can lead to the dark side. May love you that, which is evil; may hate you that, which is good. That always CAN be stopped, but sometimes it won't be stopped. The force has a dark side as do we all--and a dark will with it. Whose to say that the reign of darkness isn't the will of the force--sometimes? To sometimes be bent to another's will--that other will inevitably demise because of their appetite for power. Every being has its ups and downs, and the force is no exception!

[Sith_Reven]

The dark side is the true scope of your emotions. It does not hold back. If you understand the sith code you will find that it is true. You are allowed to love in the dark side. It is a way to power and it becomes a short one if you can't control or comprehend it. The jedi are pacifists and so they are stagnant, static, clinging to a code designed to hold them back. To deprive a being and restrict their very feelings is punishment and unhealthy.

[Darth Avlectus]

The dark side is the true scope of your emotions. It does not hold back. If you understand the sith code you will find that it is true. You are allowed to love in the dark side. It is a way to power and it becomes a short one if you can't control or comprehend it. The jedi are pacifists and so they are stagnant, static, clinging to a code designed to hold them back. To deprive a being and restrict their very feelings is punishment and unhealthy.

 

Pacifists until aggressive negotiations. So passive/ passive-aggressive.

 

And sith are Aggressive/ Passive aggressive.

 

None seem to be assertive enough, though both sides do try, and eventually fail. Not to say neutral succeeds any better/worse, more/less.

But who is anyone to judge anybody else--even with the force? But another thinking being of choice that can make a mistake.

 

Perhaps you are right about the sith code. However, If controling power is being a rotten being void of some kind of honor, I'd rather be a rat living in a dumpster. I know the good of power, and I also know there are more things than just power.

 

If preserving peace means aligning with a system that eventually undermines itself from existence, I'd rather be... as above again. I know the good of freedom, but life becomes a bit unstable.

 

I reflect what the tide of existence brings unto me, no more no less. Then on my own again.

 

MY nature in SW is one of ferrility, I don't care about power of ruling over the galaxy or proving my superiority. Simply a wish to live undisturbed and alone, be it in agony or not. Leave me alone, no problem.

 

It isn't so simple: there will always be some who must mingle.

 

I won't harm or break laws. I won't do anything unprovoked. Hell, I don't really use the force for much of anything--just to survive when fate leaves me *absolutely* no other option. Otherwise, it is dependency. Dependency is a weakness; Weakness a we all have, but weakness none the less.

 

The only problems with neutrality are there are cruel youngins who don't know to leave well enough alone, a sith wanting to lord itself over me or to convert me, or a jedi thinking it will change me or preach and lecture--and going into aggressive negotiations if I will not change. People who play disingenuous passive-aggressive mind games.

 

To stay neutral, doesn't enact much, and ultimately is ineffective where things require polarity I realize. Why take the millions or the dream lover when you can just forgo both? I know it doesn't make sense to any of you, but it doesn't have to. I don't overreact, and I resolve to repair the damage done. That's not to say we grey jedi don't lash out.

 

I discern and discriminate (discriminate as in choose carefully based on rational reasoning not racism or over generalizing) on emotion and logic. Sometimes the emotions are needed in order to have the resolve to do things. Inspiration.

Other times, emotins saturate and make things worse

(I.E. like anxiety) when you may need a clear mind in a certain matter. I've lost several hand to hand fights that way in real life.

Some things are better left unsaid or held back, at least for a time.

 

Sure one can be omnipotent,

but that doesn't mean undefeatble or eternal. Far be it from me to conform or be subserviant, but I know a fool's path when I see one, having been betrayed by people I thought I knew as a child. Also many plans never reaching fruition.

 

Simply because the force is with you, doesn't mean fate is always or ever in your favor. Fate is always going to be at least partially UN-KNOWABLE--I don't care how omniscient and all forseeing anyone is. It and the force intertwine but are not one and the same.

 

I understand both. Anyone can say that another truly doesn't understand; that does not mean anything. Another may not understand it *like you*, but that's not to say that these others are oblivious.

[PoiuyWired]

Well, Jedis keep repeating their cycle of destruction/rebuild in history, inot unlike the sith. Even though Luke seems to be wise, he is also turning more dogmatic slowly(well thank god he still allows romance though).

 

Well, His Jedi Order did not last long either, splinters joining the Imps(possably), and getting sacked (yet again) by the Sith.

 

Maybe it is the will of the force that the eternal struggle of the Jedi/Sith continues.

 

On the side note: Jedi would try to denounce emotion, relying on just logic and meditation. While the Sith would rely on emotion, but they would use logic and meditation as a tool. And you wonder why again and again the Sith is able to build grand empires? Granted, these empires may be short sometimes, but same can be said of the Jedi Orders.

 

Perhaps the true form of Jedi is not "AN ORDER" but following the will of the force "like a fallen leave in the wind" The Jedis seem to function better and more true to the spirit without the councils and grand temples and gazillion layers of selections and dogmas and tea party. Whenever they grow big they become unwieldy and gradually wasted away. Maybe the Jedis need some kind of "Rule of the Two" also.

 

Granted I am ot a followed of Bane's teaching, an order growing too large has its problem. For the Sith the problem is obvious, but at least you can see it coming. For the Jedi, it would be their slow response to the world around them.

[Prime]

The jedi are pacifists

The Jedi are not pacifists in any way.

 

pac·i·fism

–noun

1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.

2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.

[Salzella]

The Jedi are not pacifists in any way.

 

pac·i·fism

–noun

1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.

2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.

Well then you agree with what Atton talks about in TSL about the hypocrisy of the Jedi? because in theory, they do not fight, go to war. Or perhaps they disguise it as defending the innocent.

[Prime]

Well then you agree with what Atton talks about in TSL about the hypocrisy of the Jedi?

Can you give me the quote or the jist? I don't quite remember it offhand. I will be happy to comment then!

 

because in theory, they do not fight, go to war.

But they do fight and do go to war. They pretty much always have. They did before the KOTOR timeframe and they did afterwards. Clearly they are trained to fight, and do fight. They are kind of like police officers. They always try to solve a problem peacefully, but they will use deadly force if necessary, and don't hesitate to do so.

 

In the case of the Jedi and the Mandalorain Wars, they didn't jump in not because they don't want to fight, but because they weren't sure it was the best course of action at that time. They felt it may make matters worse instead of better.

 

Or perhaps they disguise it as defending the innocent.

They don't disquise anything. The Jedi are not moral beings and do not make decisions on whether it is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense.

[jonathan7]

The dark side is the true scope of your emotions. It does not hold back. If you understand the sith code you will find that it is true. You are allowed to love in the dark side. It is a way to power and it becomes a short one if you can't control or comprehend it. The jedi are pacifists and so they are stagnant, static, clinging to a code designed to hold them back. To deprive a being and restrict their very feelings is punishment and unhealthy.

 

Thats a load of poo... moral relativism is utter crap... I quote "To deprive a being and restrict their feelings is punishment and unhealthy" does that mean pedophiles should be allowed to just run free and do what they like because the law restricts their feelings? Humans are predisposed to commit acts of evil, just look at history... Hitler, Stalin etc is what happens in places which develop this approach. As for DS people being able to love they are not capable of such emotion, the very essence of being DS is putting yourself above everyone else and thinking everyone else is around for you to use and further yourself. By nature this would suffocate love... Love is putting another person ahead of you, and putting their needs ahead of yours a DS person would never do this. A DS person would view a person they 'Love' as someone to pleasure them and do wha they want, that is not Love its treating someone as an object.

[Sith_Reven]

Alright jonathan7 you have me there. The pediphile analogy is ok. But what I am getting at is that if someone coops up there emotions inside eventually it drives them nuts and they boil over.

[JediMaster12]

Well, Jedis keep repeating their cycle of destruction/rebuild in history, inot unlike the sith...Maybe it is the will of the force that the eternal struggle of the Jedi/Sith continues.

Everything is cyclical in nature. It is historic belief that the cycle continues, light battles dark, good battles evil. In a way this is balance. You can't have one without the other. This same priciple can be applied to nature like the sun and monn. The day conquers night for a time and vice versa.

 

Humans are predisposed to commit acts of evil...

This sounds like something out of the Bible and the belief that we are born in sin, live in sin and die in sin. I can see your point in using historical figures. People have the potential to be evil but again that reverts back to the power of choice. As what has been said before, choices define who we are. I know that the choices that I have made make me appear as a bookworm with writing talent to some, an annoying brat to my brother, etc. How we are perceived bears influence on how we view ourselves.

[Imoras]

Overzealous and preachy religious fanatics

[jonathan7]

Alright jonathan7 you have me there. The pediphile analogy is ok. But what I am getting at is that if someone coops up there emotions inside eventually it drives them nuts and they boil over.

 

Indeed, I wasnt advocating the Jedi code either I agree with some of their philosophies such as using violence only when you havent been the one to start it; e.g. I don't agree with pre-emptive strikes. Thats my personal belief and feel free to disagree Personally I am a Christian and too me the Sith code seems alot like what modern Satanists believe (e.g. rule of the powerful over the weak etc) Back to point it is dangerous to bottle up emotions too the point the Jedi Code does... For example look at the number of pedophile priests within the Catholic Church, it is a much higher prevelance than in a 'normal' population because the Priests have to contain to an unatural degree of emotion. My argument more was that some emotions should be controlled such as some people wanting to abuse children, or serial killers, or bank robbers etc. So personally I am against parts of both codes, but I side much more with the Jedi, I'm sure given ur name you'll go for the sith

 

This sounds like something out of the Bible and the belief that we are born in sin, live in sin and die in sin. I can see your point in using historical figures. People have the potential to be evil but again that reverts back to the power of choice. As what has been said before, choices define who we are. I know that the choices that I have made make me appear as a bookworm with writing talent to some, an annoying brat to my brother, etc. How we are perceived bears influence on how we view ourselves.

 

Thats probably because I am a devout Christian so thats my belief, hence the fact I believe that, if you so wish we can carry on the debate if you so wish but its kind of off topic.

 

Overzealous and preachy religious fanatics

 

Is that aimed at me or the Jedi? I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me, neither would I say that I am preachey I enjoy debating but I would argue this; My argument is more against relativism than it is people disagreing or debating a point. E.g. There either is a God or there isn't, I personally don't like the whole, its ok for you to believe that but I believe this... its abit like me saying the world is square and you arguing the world is a sphere, only one of us can be right so I dont understand how poeple think to opposing beliefs can both be right (e.g. Atheism and Christianity). Welcome to the Forums btw

[Imoras]

It was about the jedi

[SilentScope001]

I am an ethical relativist, so I see the need to intervene and make a small defense of it.

 

You see the pedophile as evil, but does the pedohpile see himself as evil? No, he thinks that what he is doing is justified.

 

That is the core of ethical revalitism. That it is all relative what is right and what is wrong, and it all depends on the mind. You can aruge that the pedophile's mind is messed up (and I'll agree with you), but that still does not change the fact that ACCORDING to the pedophile, what he is doing is right.

 

Think about it. What if everyone believes that murder is right? Everyone? Then...murder becomes right. We define ethics and beliefs, and nothing is truly objective, everything is subjective.

 

It is only a theory of course. In the pedophile case, most people (expect the pedophiles) see the pedophiles as wrong, but what about other...shall we say...more delicate issues? Say, War in Iraq, Abortion, Sucidice, maybe even terrorism/feedom fighting? One person's sin is another person's gateway to Heaven.

 

Now that this is settled...let go back to here:

 

Overzealous and preachy religious fanatics

 

Wow. Most preceptive quote I have ever seen.

 

All this time, we were arguging over what the Jedi are, if they are good or not...but what if their entire religion is false? Then...oops. Remember, the Sith are a splinter group of the Jedi, so if the Jedi and the Sith are wrong about the Force, then what?

 

Don't tell me that the Jedi and the Sith have revaltory knowledge from The Force, having great holy books handed down by Messengers of the Force that allows us to know what is right and wrong...because it hasn't happened. Nobody knows much about the Force, and in the end, you have to accept either the Jedi or the Sith...or some other crazy religious creed (Horray for the Zhenion Sha!). In the end, it comes down to what you choose to believe, and who you trust.

 

Man, no wonder there are still skeptics in the Star Wars universe (Mira, Han Solo).

[stoffe]

Mod note: This discussion was starting to branch off in a direction that had little to do with the topic of this thread. I've split those posts into a separate thread, found here, if you want to continue that discussion.

[Imoras]

Man, no wonder there are still skeptics in the Star Wars universe (Mira, Han Solo).

 

My favourite characters

Along with Jolee

 

Anyway i think the Sith got it right

I mean they're not portrayed as some weird religious cult like the jedi

They're just doing whatever they feel like

My kind of ppl

Although great deal of them seem to be egocentrics who suffer from megalomania and are extremely violent

As if most of the Sith got the Sith philosophy wrong

They say it themselves that being a Sith is all about doing what you want, taking the force as a gift instead of a burden and abandoning all the restrictions the Jedi attempt to force on every Force user

But the authors decide that every1 who isn't a control freak and religious fanatic must be crazy and evil killing machine and so all Sith are portrayed that way

I don't like it

[Nancy Allen``]

Jedi are human, or alien, just like everybody else. They have human feelings, hurt and bleed just like anybody. Their disguishing characteristics, apart from obvious skill with a lightsaber and force powers, is that most of them try and live like monks. Harsh? They try and deny their human characteristics to become devine. Is part of that arrogance? I would be more inclined to say they are trying to be the best they can be. Jedi are cool, and with few exceptions (Vrook, Atris) good people, but just me personally I prefer someone who doesn't deny their personality. There are Jedi who either don't have a handle on controlling their personality (Bastila) or simply choose not to (Jolee, Kyle Katarn) and in a way they are better for it.

[JediMaster12]

Overzealous and preachy religious fanatics

Excuse me? You guys carried the conversation in that direction. I merely observed what was said and responded to it. If you want to define this for me please do so in the thread that stoffe made for that.

 

Thats probably because I am a devout Christian so thats my belief, hence the fact I believe that, if you so wish we can carry on the debate if you so wish but its kind of off topic.

Actually it was relevant in that I have been emphasizing that choice dictates the direction a person wants to go in whether they be Jedi or Sith. We do have choice and the moral compass can point us in the right direction but it doesn't make us go there. Look at Anakin, he chose to do what he did and hence became a Sith. He may have had good intentions but sometimes the worse things happene even when they are done with the best of intentions.

 

Jedi are human, or alien, just like everybody else. They have human feelings, hurt and bleed just like anybody. Their disguishing characteristics, apart from obvious skill with a lightsaber and force powers, is that most of them try and live like monks.

Yes the Jedi are people. Maybe the idea was for them to achieve a certain type of harmony with everything around them. I admit that by the time we get to TPM, the council began arrogant. I said it before, when you have centuries of tradition to back things up, it is very hard to institute change.