More Star Wars Political Tripe
Science Fiction
| May 16, 2005
| Tim
"Only a Sith thinks in absolutes," said Obi-Wan, clearly thinking in absolutes.
Professor Bainbridge opines that Lucas continues to betray the original Star Wars story arc in order top push Democratic talking points in his Star Wars films. Worth a read, IMO.
You know, part of the fun of the original series was the escapism -- instead of living in the Carter years, with gas lines and "stagflation", viewers were transported "Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." Sad to see such an icon made into such a reliable vehicle for this year's leftist gripes.
Wonder if we'll hear from "Nute Gunray" and his eeeeevil "Galactic Trade Federation" again. Or perhaps this time we'll have "Fhrist Rhice", head of the eeeeevil "Galatic Family Values Coalition" or "Energy Trading Guild".
In seven years, who will care?
UPDATE: "Let me say this in simple right and wrong, black and white terms..." Apparently, former Democratic candidate John Edwards was a Sith.
If only the enemies think in absolutes, what does that make our side; the nation of progressive retardation? Being absolutely against absolutes is none too intelligent, in fact it is a contradiction in terms, as you point out.
That Starwars Quote is inaccurate to say the least. It should be as stated:
"Only a Sith deals an absolute." possibly reffering that the Sith blindly think in black and white, not allowing for alternatives to be offered.
Your own quote appears to be inaccurate as well, "to say the least". From the script:
ANAKIN: If you're not with me, you're my enemy.
OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.
Your interpretation is clearly off too: Obi-wan says only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. "Deals in" does not mean "reject all others as a possibility". It means to touch, or handle, use or dish out. By offering such an absolute rule, Obi-Wan is as much "dealing in" absolutes as Anakin was.
And Obi-Wan clearly loves absolutes, and, like any liberal, dispenses his absolutist moral judgements quite frequently:
OBI-WAN: Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil.
In contrast, Anakin, while not denying the possiblity of moral absolutes, and not claiming for sure to be right, at least understands the logic of the situation, and can see the other point of view:
ANAKIN: From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil.
And, indeed, that's at least consistent. And then here's Obi-Wan again, implying his way is the only way, and that all others are wrong or damned:
OBI-WAN: Well, then you are lost!
So we have Anakin, who believes in right and wrong, and is trying to find his way, and understands that each parties' actions are inevitable given their point of view. He can see what his opponents are saying.
In contrast, Obi-Wan is so deluded that he doesn't realize his entire moral foundation has no basis other than his own self-aggrandizing contradictions. He claims there are no absolutes, but then freely implies only he knows the truth and that all others are in error. And that those who don't share his view are evil.
In short, Obi-Wan is condemned as evil by his own judgements, whereas Anakin, misguided though he may be, is at least honest.
Thus, Lucas takes the guiding philosophy of some of the bloodiest, most evil regimes in history (moral relativism plus pretended moral rectitude) and whitewashes it by attributing it to the "good guys". Whereas he takes the words of Jesus of Nazareth and puts them in the mouth of his villain.
Perhaps this should be telling us something about Lucas's own values. After all, he admitted in the first movie, the Jedi were meant to represent a group who committed genocide.
If you really truely understand the movie. It has stated that the Jedi and the Siths are the same in many respects, even absolutes. Its the the absolutes that each faction denys themselves of being makes each other placed in conflict. Shapes them in being a mirror image (reflection) of each other. Now the question is are they fighting against what is evil from their point of view, or are they just fighting a weakness they see in themselves, just hoping to correct??
Now the question is are they fighting against what is evil from their point of view, or are they just fighting a weakness they see in themselves, just hoping to correct??
I think a lot of people, when attacking others, are actually attacking faults they see in themselves. For example, a proud person is acutely aware of the pride in others. And a man who is a thief is inclined to believe everyone else steals too -- whether they do or not. A liar tells himself everyone else is a liar too.
But they do not attack others because they wish to correct their own weakness. They attack others because they wish to deny and cherish and keep their own faults. The thief argues everyone else steals also NOT because he wishes to stop stealing, but because he himself has no plans to admit his faults and change them. He's doing this to JUSTIFY his fault, and evil way of life, not change it.
So we attack others for our own faults because we ourselves are evil.
anakin a batu obi wan kčnobi
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Maxine Waters Dives in the Deep End »
|
If only the enemies think in absolutes, what does that make our side; the nation of progressive retardation? Being absolutely against absolutes is none too intelligent, in fact it is a contradiction in terms, as you point out.
Posted by: John S Bolton on May 23, 2005 06:52 PM