see, I do blame the Jedi Order, especially the Jedi Council, for pushing Anakin to make some of the bad choices he did. especially in Revenge of the Sith. does that take away the choice from Anakin, no, but it does make it much harder to make the right one.
personally, I prefer the complex world of the prequels to the apparently black-and-white view of the originals.
Thanks to Lucas, the Jedi were presented as anything but one-dimensional.
They weren't one-dimensional? What version of the movie did you watch then?
*Ducks to avoid a force-projected blast of FAN RAGE.*
I do not believe that Qui-Gon had never ignored the Unifying Force
I think perhaps you mean "ever" rather than "never". If what you don't believe is "Qui-Gon never ignored the Unifying Force" that would mean you accept that Qui-Gon must have ignored the Unifying Force at some point. That's the problem with double negatives...
The problem with the Jedi was that they were either too stupid or too blind to consider that when it comes to forming or letting go of attachments, it all depended upon the moment. Instead, they adhered to a more narrow view on the subject. They believed that all attachments had a negative effect upon an individual and to become a Jedi disciple, one must let go of all attachments.
But surely the message in Episode III is that the Jedi Council are right on this one? They say that emotional attachments will
( ... )
But surely the message in Episode III is that the Jedi Council are right on this one? They say that emotional attachments will lead to the dark side - and they do!
Yes, the Jedi were right that attachments will lead to negative thoughts and actions. But they were also wrong, as both Luke and Vader's actions in "RETURN OF THE JEDI" proved.
The Jedi failed to take into account that attachments can have both a positive and negative effect upon a person. It all depends upon the moment and the situation. But in the end, an individual has to eventually learn to let go of attachments in life and move on permanently. The Jedi never taught their acolytes about letting go of attachments. They simply lectured about it, and enforced it as a rule.
You don't appear to have noticed the point where I explained that the events in ROTJ didn't show Luke having attachment. Father or not, Luke has every reason to hate his father Anakin. Anakin abandoned him as a baby, killed his adopted parents, tortured his friends, cut off his hand and generally tried to destroy everything he believes in. Luke's choice not to succumb to anger actually requires a great deal of willpower to resist emotional attachment to friends, adopted parents, etc.
Luke is embracing neutral compassion, not emotional attachment, in his confrontation with Vader in ROTJ.
Luke is embracing neutral compassion, not emotional attachment, in his confrontation with Vader in ROTJ. I don't buy that. It wasn't until after he'd learned that Vader was his father (that there was an attachment between him) that he started going "hell no, I can't kill him." And that over the objections of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, the Grand Master of the "attachment = evil" school of philosophy. You'll notice he didn't embrace "neutral compassion" when it comes to the Emperor. So what explanation is there for his actions, other than his emotional attachment to his father, however estranged?
Surely the message of Episode III was that psychological violence inflicted by the principle of nonattachment backfired on the Jedi big time, since it helped insure that the only attachments Anakin could form would be highly toxic. (It's a bit like abstinence-only education, actually.)
The problem I found was that Anakin's change to the dark side seems entirely unnatural. I actually prefer the Clone Wars cartoons (from the awesome Genndy Tartatovsky, who is working on a sequel to "The Dark Crystal") to the Lucas directed movies. Lucas could have done with a different person directing and he actually approached people, but they refused to do it because if people didn't like them, these directors would have received all the blame.
Anakin's change to the dark side had been set up in TPM and slowly came to its conclusions in ROTS. I don't know how you missed all of that.
As for the "CLONE WARS", I'm not particularly fond of it. It's too Original Trilogy for my tastes and it doesn't mesh well with the characterizations of the Prequel Trilogy.
In regard to Anakin's slide to darkness . . . we can agree to DISAGREE.
Father or not, Luke has every reason to hate his father Anakin. Anakin abandoned him as a baby, killed his adopted parents, tortured his friends, cut off his hand and generally tried to destroy everything he believes in. Luke's choice not to succumb to anger actually requires a great deal of willpower to resist emotional attachment to friends, adopted parents, etc.When you say that Anakin had abandoned Luke as a baby . . . are you speaking from Luke's point-of-view or what had really happened? Because in the actual story, Anakin had no idea that Padme managed to give birth to Luke and Leia before her death
( ... )
Personally, I wouldn't put it in terms of letting attachments go-because we don't. Ever.
The trick is to let the person (or thing) we're attached to go. We're still attached them, even if they've died (or been destroyed) or we've completely severed contact with them.
Comments 11
personally, I prefer the complex world of the prequels to the apparently black-and-white view of the originals.
Reply
They weren't one-dimensional? What version of the movie did you watch then?
*Ducks to avoid a force-projected blast of FAN RAGE.*
I do not believe that Qui-Gon had never ignored the Unifying Force
I think perhaps you mean "ever" rather than "never". If what you don't believe is "Qui-Gon never ignored the Unifying Force" that would mean you accept that Qui-Gon must have ignored the Unifying Force at some point. That's the problem with double negatives...
The problem with the Jedi was that they were either too stupid or too blind to consider that when it comes to forming or letting go of attachments, it all depended upon the moment. Instead, they adhered to a more narrow view on the subject. They believed that all attachments had a negative effect upon an individual and to become a Jedi disciple, one must let go of all attachments.
But surely the message in Episode III is that the Jedi Council are right on this one? They say that emotional attachments will ( ... )
Reply
Yes, the Jedi were right that attachments will lead to negative thoughts and actions. But they were also wrong, as both Luke and Vader's actions in "RETURN OF THE JEDI" proved.
The Jedi failed to take into account that attachments can have both a positive and negative effect upon a person. It all depends upon the moment and the situation. But in the end, an individual has to eventually learn to let go of attachments in life and move on permanently. The Jedi never taught their acolytes about letting go of attachments. They simply lectured about it, and enforced it as a rule.
Reply
Luke is embracing neutral compassion, not emotional attachment, in his confrontation with Vader in ROTJ.
Reply
I don't buy that. It wasn't until after he'd learned that Vader was his father (that there was an attachment between him) that he started going "hell no, I can't kill him." And that over the objections of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, the Grand Master of the "attachment = evil" school of philosophy. You'll notice he didn't embrace "neutral compassion" when it comes to the Emperor. So what explanation is there for his actions, other than his emotional attachment to his father, however estranged?
Surely the message of Episode III was that psychological violence inflicted by the principle of nonattachment backfired on the Jedi big time, since it helped insure that the only attachments Anakin could form would be highly toxic. (It's a bit like abstinence-only education, actually.)
Reply
Anakin's change to the dark side had been set up in TPM and slowly came to its conclusions in ROTS. I don't know how you missed all of that.
As for the "CLONE WARS", I'm not particularly fond of it. It's too Original Trilogy for my tastes and it doesn't mesh well with the characterizations of the Prequel Trilogy.
Reply
I didn't say that I missed it. I said that I saw the progression and that it seemed unnatural.
Reply
Father or not, Luke has every reason to hate his father Anakin. Anakin abandoned him as a baby, killed his adopted parents, tortured his friends, cut off his hand and generally tried to destroy everything he believes in. Luke's choice not to succumb to anger actually requires a great deal of willpower to resist emotional attachment to friends, adopted parents, etc.When you say that Anakin had abandoned Luke as a baby . . . are you speaking from Luke's point-of-view or what had really happened? Because in the actual story, Anakin had no idea that Padme managed to give birth to Luke and Leia before her death ( ... )
Reply
The trick is to let the person (or thing) we're attached to go. We're still attached them, even if they've died (or been destroyed) or we've completely severed contact with them.
Reply
Leave a comment