The Philosophy of Jolee Bindo: Love Will (not) Condemn You
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- Star Wars fans love Jolee Bindo for his criticism of the Jedi on the topic of love. Is he correct? This video will examine Jolee's criticism, life, philosophy, and views on love in the Star Wars setting.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D5 | Fall | พลาดวันนี้ จะต้องเสียใจ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A5-Cuo12p6A/mqdefault.jpg)
![ฮักเทื่อสุดท้าย - บอย ศิริชัย [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1PoPoQ-B-k/mqdefault.jpg)
Not entirely convinced about the mechanisms of the Force or that attachments lead to the Dark Side?
Then I recommend that you watch my video The Foundations of Star Wars that examines the nature of the Force. All answers are found there.
th-cam.com/video/-a7x5N2eVFE/w-d-xo.html
"again guys, just...*sigh* just watch this video if you're still confused"
i wrote a time ago why your videos have a loose end and you never gave a satisfactory answer.
Han and Leia had a good loving relationship in EU no? Maybe its just not an absolute and that passions are not equal or as strong? Maybe it is just conditional on an individual basis, all can be pushed to the dark side through love, but maybe not absolutely
Any relationship in the EU does not count because they were written by Star Wars fans before Lucas established the context of attachments leading to the Dark Side. I discuss the relationship of Han and Leia in my Foundations of Star Wars video.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. so in the end, the jedi were right.
i see alot of people like to talk as the jedis are idiots but it just seems they are right.
Not making a choice is a choice itself
And apathy is death
And that is a paradox.
@@Darkdayzz No, because the first and second use of choice mean different things.
If you are makeing a choice conciously than its is a choice, but if it just something you do unconcudly than it is apathy.
Not really seeing as in most cases people are just choosing from the choices that are given to them to choose from.
The more you look at it, the more it seems like the force wants to screw everyone over. Quoting Zayne Carrick: *The Force wants me alive - it doesn't want me happy, but it wants me alive.*
The force uses the Jedi for a utilitarian form of the greater good, they are expected to sacrifice their entire lives to enhance rest of the people of the galaxy's lives. It sees the sacrifice of the few as worth it for the benefit of the many.
I love the more toxic look that the old republic put on the force
#Krieawasright
Zayne Carrick is an underrated character, god the kotor comics were awesome.
@@falconJB That's all well and good if you're not a Jedi flesh puppet.
I think when Jolee said "Love will save you, not condemn you" he didn't mean that you will survive nor did he mean that you will live happily ever after. He meant that your life will be redeemed and given a purpose. It will be worth it. I experienced love and that's what this means to me. I will never be happy with the man I love. But his existence shines upon my life like a sun, making it worth waking up in the morning.
Why won’t you be happy?
Thats the right idea. Cherish the memories and do not cling onto them. You'll find love again
@@hopebringer2348 Because people are never satisfied. They mistake perfect for happiness and joy for perfection.
Hopebringer
Desire is infinite
@@hopebringer2348 i won't say this, but she/he will certainly feels something missing. A relationship is about extra things, an extra meaning of you life, an extra happiness and keep going. Love is more complex than just an affirmation, i kinda understand her/him in what she/he wants to say, but definitely isn't just this. She/he will be happy, for sure, but won't be the same thing
While I do hope that this eventually won't be your last star wars video, mainly because it's more difficult to find solid non-pandering video about star wars than it is to find gold on the sidewalk; I do understand being burnt out as I'm sure these scrips take more than enough time to write let alone review. Then record.
Diamond in the rough is an understatement with your videos and I'll continue to replay them in the background a dozen more times than I already have.
The Ratatouille video is another one I appreciate beyond your star wars playlist, so needless to say I look forward to the next video.
Aye it's you! Lol incognito mode I love your stuff! When are you doing more?
@@mberry7727 Once my cat finishes learning how to use Photoshop we'll hit the ground running.
Huge +1 to this comment
Forget SW videos--just finding an unpretentious discussion of philosophies uncommon to the West is difficult enough. That's why I watch--I barely know anything of SW beyond the films.
Maybe kreia got the idea to kill the force becouse she wasnt able to love freely
Didn't Kreia love a Mandalorian when she was still a Jedi? The man who she had a daughter with?
@The Fox Strikes it would make sense, since she knew about the echani fighting rituals and what they mean.
@The Fox Strikes that's right, an Echani. It's been a long time since I've played KOTOR 2. Of course Kreia was Arren Kae. ☺
@@Dave-um7mw I don't think she was Arren Kae. Arren got excommunicated, because of her pregnancy and Kreia left the order on her own volition to travel after Revan.
more likely she views the force as a threat to her highly individualistic philosophy
Theory time: all the jedi masters are representations of the previous games force sensitive party memebers.
Jolee- Zez-kai Ell: Both ran away from problem and isolated themselves.
Bastila- Vrook :Both Pretentious and aggressive about beliefs
Juhanni-Kavarr : Both aggressive and always seeking a fight.
Huh good observation.
If you ever want to use this comment in a video you have my permission. Im a huge fan of yours anime profile person❤.
That's a very good theory that I hasn't considered.
Tbh I'm just bouncing off of your thought with Jolee and Zez with the way Kriea read both them to filth.
I think Bastila was Vrook's padawan so that theory makes even more sense.
Edit: I don't think Kreia was criticizing Zez-kai Ell for not getting involved during his exile but rather for his inability to give up the force. Where he still felt the pain of those around him and could have helped (either with or without the force) but instead chose to do absolutely nothing out of fear for himself. Had he given up the force and then tried to have influence over the moon without the force (or even just done nothing while having given up the force completely), I doubt Kreia would have had anything to criticize him for.
As Palpatine said to Anakin: "All those who gain power are afraid to lose it." The Jedi can give up loving themselves to selflessly love others, while the Sith can give up loving other people to selfishly love only themselves. Ultimately they both loved the gifts from the Force more than anything else. The power that the Force bestowed upon them. That is not to say, that to love God and disregard everyone else, because God teaches us to love others because He loved us first. That we should extend the love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness that He gave us to other people.
The Force should be a tool to accomplish other things in life. Unfortunately, many Force users end up forgetting their original goal to achieve the peak of whatever religious mumbo-jumbo that they originally just saw as a means, not an end.
I think the funniest thing about Star Wars is learning that George Lucas was fascinated by Darth Talon - a tattooed red Twilek wearing a bikini and holding a lightsaber. She was going to be paling around with Maul in games and a key antagonist in his sequels. I can't even imagine how awkward it was when George told the developers of the Maul game that Talon had to be included.
Devs: "Why do we need to included Talon?"
Geor: "Well . . . I just . . . think she's . . . n-neet - you know?"
"She's a very . . . complex character, and has that Twilek design with the two l-large . . ."
". . . Put her in the game or your fired"
We were so close to seeing George's waifu in movies and games, if only they had not been canned. George Lucas does seem mostly fine with how everything went down though.
I guess George was able to live up to the message of his own work, and let go of his Twilek waifu.
Carrie Fisher once explained that Lucas told her that there aren't any underwear in space. Lucas has always been a big pervert. There's a clip somewhere of Lucas explaining why he remains a bachelor because he is very picky.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. I guess even Lucas can't let go of some things.
If i remember correctly he decided it when he saw her statue in the game developers' office. Despite them trying to tell him she was from several thousand of years after maul.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Lucas never married?
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Doesn't he have a daughter?
The Force always was the real villain in all of Star Wars.
So...god? The demiurge? Uh-oh.
Yep. Always has been.
The Force is just a tool, that the Celestials made... but I guess it evolved to be similar to U-Do from Xenosaga :)) someway... maybe :))
"May the Force be with you-always."😈
Hi Kreia
I love all the people that argue the philosophy of the Star Wars (specifically the Jedi) not making sense, and conflating it with real world philosophy. Yes, it is based off real world philosophies and dichotomies. However, people forget that the *existence of the Force* and its rules changes how sentients (specifically Force-sensitives) within the world of Star Wars are forced to function, regardless of the realities of our real world philosophies.
Yes, it is incredibly frustrating and hard for people to grasp.
You misunderstood. What I like to bring as a counter-example to "love being bad" (in the context of Star Wars) is not Luke's love as a son, but *Vader's love as a father* turning him from the Dark Side. Also, as you said, Jolee Bindo based his philosophy on his personal life experience. It wasn't love that turned his loved one to the dark side, but her unchecked passion, which overcame love.
"Passion is not the same thing as love." -Jolee Bindo
This. Vader had already reconciled the side of him that was Anakin to the point where he could accept that he was Luke's father, all that was left was to choose his love for Luke and break the shackles of the Sith philosophy that claims to set you free.
This was my first thought as well when he brought up the end of Return of the Jedi. It wasn't Luke's love for his father, but Vader's love for his son, which is quite different in the context of the moment.
Exept it is
Nope you are one who don't get it
Force users are incapable of love
Deal with it
Reject the Jedi/Sith, return to Monke
Return to Monke is unironically Lucas' stance.
Return to the Mojave
return to monke or ascend to crab
@@princeslime7175 youtube took it down for some bullshit reason. you can find it on his website
@@resder7502 much appreciated I had no idea he had a website
I'm glad that I'm not a Force Sensitive, just an average Joe. I choose the real world over Star Wars because I can be human and love whoever and however I want.
Ooooh, have I got news for that...
You've still got small things like talents that make you less human
@@ruzantsu4147 Oh, like what?
Akchually, existence is suffering IRL too.
@@aceknowledgable9403 the more smarter you are the more pressure you have to yourself to be good with this talent but you are sacrificing your own desires for it and sometimes you can entirely succumb to them, it's really hard to keep it moderation and thus you lose ur humanity a little because no human is supposed be as a "good person" they are supposed to be flawed and yet u are denied that when you already know ways to avoid every mistake easily.
@@ruzantsu4147 Denied gratification, or resistance to some natural desires like sex or luxury, is what makes you successful, maybe not rich but clean in an unclean world.
all force users:
good news: you can do cool shit with both force of will and your mind
bad news: non-force users, even slaves, are guaranteed to have a freer life than you
Kreia: "what if I kill it?"
The force it's self: "What if your no longer canon and therefor never existed?"
It's wierd how in some interviews, Lucas seems to be happy and proclaims happiness from his art, a passion, yet he still believes that compassion and selflessness is the only answer to life.
Let's not forget the irony of the man who created the modern system of ultra-merchandised intellectual property preaching against greed.
The funniest example of Lucas being greedy is when the Disney CEO had a dinner with Lucas and implied that he was getting old. This convinced Lucas to sell all of Star Wars to Disney. Originally, Disney was supposed to buy Star Wars for two billion, but a few years prior, Disney had bought Marvel for around three billion. So Lucas felt that Star Wars was worth more than Marvel and upped the price to four billion. Disney reluctantly agreed. If that's not the epitome of greed and ego, I don't know what is.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. in all honesty he should've made them pay more considering how the IP has been run into the dirty for the most part
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Once more proving my point about how completely hypocritcal all of Lucas' views are. He preaches what he doesn't practice, not remotely. What could be more greedy and more attached to the self than being a billionaire who sells his own ideas for more wealth (and thus, power)? It's the same as with Anno all over again. Preaching a philosophy that the maker does not hold themselves to, not remotely. This is what makes the whole thing even more unpalatable.
@@DraculaCronqvist Lucas is a self-made man who sold Star Wars to focus on raising his children and to give his employees work.
Everytime I'm deep in thought about star wars, you always seem to provide a rebuttal lmao. I was thinking about jolee bindo and the end of ROTJ literally just the other day
Good haha. I hope this video was satisfactory.
"Wisdom comes from experience, and experience comes from making mistakes."- Master Splinter
"Failure, most of all. The greatest teacher, failure is. Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters." - Yoda.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. The Last Jedi is fan fiction. Fan fiction created by the woke ideology. That quote in particular is designed and written so as to berate and humiliate Luke Skywalker and elevate above him the Mary Sue, as per the feminist agenda.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. "Failure is part of the journey." -Eno Cordova, Jedi Fallen Order. Even though this is true, both for those who play videogames and like Starwars, it is a conclusion we come to pretty easily, and in The Last Jedi it is something Luke Skywalker has already learned and doesn't need a reminder from Yoda about. It is humiliating and insulting to Luke's character in The Last Jedi to remind Luke of this, since he would have already learned this lesson in the original trilogy when he was like 20. Why does he need a reminder about this? Oh right! He doesn't! And yes, I agree with Kaizoku Jimbei. All that quote from Yoda did in TLJ was bring down Luke for the sake of lifting Rey up to appease the toxic feminist agenda.
Being force sensitive feels more like a curse than having cool space magic
That's why I believe it needs to be destroyed in order for the galaxy to be free.
Seems rather have potterverse magic over force powers, although with sith sorcery brungs the question if its possible to combine the two.
These breakdowns gave me such joy. Congratulations on another excellent vid.
I think the biggest problem I always have with star wars(as someone who loves it) is that there is no middle ground. IRL Greed can be bad but it can also be essential to life. Empathy can be good but it can also be just as bad. In star wars it always feel like if you're greedy (or any other "bad" trait) = your evil and if you have empathy (or any other "good" trait) your automatically good. It just feels so flat and deterministic, at least for anyone with the force. I feel like the force just takes all nuance out of what it means to be human or alive.
Kreia would like to know your location.
I think I'd push against this. Greed isn't good, because greed is an obsession with goods. There is a difference between acting in a self-interested way, and in a greedy way. But Greed, by it's very nature, is only greed if it is taken to an extent such that it's maladaptive. In the same way resting can be a good thing, but sloth is wrong. Lust is necessary for life, but becoming so obsessed with lust that you allow it to run your life leaves you as an addict.
I think part of that is the force makes it a slippery slope for most for sensitives. If you're greedy once the next time's easier and if you're kind once the next time's easier. I suppose this is what centering one's self is supposed to accomplish where you reset that balance and try to not let the force pull you towards any extreme.
@@beskamir5977 Literally this, except in reality.
One should carefully cultivate virtue, and avoid vice. Equally because falling to vice is easy, and because it is wrong.
Wrong in the literal sense that it is maladaptive, and easy in the literal sense, that vice tends to be the more tempting option in any scenario, since it tends to deliver immediate satisfaction in place of long term good.
Of course, it deserves to be said that many virtues can be taken too far, to the point they become self-destructive. I would personally argue that this is tied in with another vice, but its worth noting all the same.
Where Star wars comes into this is-- Force users, through the immense power placed upon them, cannot remain average. They will naturally have immense power. Thus, they will over time either tend towards corruption, or stave off corruption through wisdom.
@@williamchristy9463 I mean the definition of greed is "intense and selfish desire for something" it says nothing about obsession, it can be a obsession but it's a desire first. I've met a lot of strong and hard working people in my life and I would say most of them are greedy for a better life or wealth. How is that a bad thing? By having this intense and selfish desire they've made their lives(and the lives of their families) better and I don't see a problem with that.
Sure if you wanna go with your own definition of greed=obsession then sure, but anything can be bad as an obsession not just greed. Moderation is key.
"I'm done with Star Wars."
>Makes more Star Wars videos
I just can't let go >_>
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Well, Letting Go is one of the hardest things you could do in life. This is why there have been very few enlightened Buddhists in history. Letting go of nostalgia is difficult, but at least you moved it into a proper context, see it for what it has become, instead of blindly worshipping it like many others do, never questioning.
Lucas did say that no human can let go.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Which just coninues the trend of his philosophy working actively against him. If no human can let go, why preach a morality that is inherently unobtainable and works against what we could ever be? (Ignoring, for a moment, if we should be that.)
@@DraculaCronqvist My position is that he intentionally makes movies that are understandable to children to teach humanity to let go similar to the Jedi training children at a young age.
Was not expecting that Kreia quote to be so loud *APATHY IS DEATH* made me jump
Glad to see your still doing videos like this.
It would be interesting to see Jolee and Kreia talk about this
I think the cases you mentioned to show case how love does not save anyone in star wars all refer to cases when person a loved person b but their love does not make them change their ways. I believe jollee talks about people being saved by loving others, not necessarily being loved themselves. Also along the lines of what Hanlvam commented, the salvation Jollee talks about is not avoiding death but finding meaning and fulfillment in one’s life. This satisfaction, this meaning, the feeling of loving and being loved, I believe is the greatest deterrent to the dark side, or arrogance, narcissism and selfishness in the real world.
“Power is Overrated. I think you are wise to choose love instead.”-Iroh
I am a bit confused by your conclusion in this video, which seems to be encapsulated in your line, “Let go of the Force, but never let go of attachments.” You emphasize the Force as something corrupting given its strength and power. I think this is absolutely wrong - especially if we consider “the Force” here as Power itself.
You cannot compare the two polarities (Non-Attachment of the Jedi vs. Attachment of the Sith), and define the mean as something new. Rather, consider the initial polarity alongside _power_.
The Sith are obviously concerned with attachment and power. The Jedi are the opposite, non-attachment and non-power. This might sound silly at first, given the strength of the Jedi, but remember their commitment to stay out of politics and reluctance to take on leadership and responsibility in the government of the Republic. This is what ultimately leads to the doom of the Jedi.
The Jedi achieve non-attachment but neglect the responsibility that ought to come of such wisdom. It is the wise who ought to rule, but the Jedi reject this. The Sith, by contrast, are all too happy to fill this void - though they lack the wisdom of non-attachment which ultimately leads to _their_ downfall.
This fits nicely if you consider Luke Skywalker to be the apotheosis of the Jedi, truly “bringing balance to the Force” - as is said - unlike the original Jedi of the Republic. Luke and Leia, both Force wielders, take an active role in the establishment of the new government following the fall of the Empire. (My knowledge of Legends is scanty, though I do not think it matters in a discussion of the fundamental forces at work in _Star Wars_.) Thus, the actual ideal in _Star Wars_ is the accumulation of wisdom (non-attachment being the root) and the wise exercise of power to prevent the triumph of unscrupulous evil.
This all becomes obvious when you consider that the philosophy of George Lucas's _Star Wars_ is basically a New Age take on esoteric Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are: 1) Life is filled with suffering, 2) attachment is the root of all suffering, 3) suffering can be eliminated by eliminating attachment, 4) attachment can be eliminated by following the Noble Eightfold Path - which is basically cultivating virtue.
One of the major critiques of philosophers is their reluctance to take power, despite them clearly being the most qualified for the job; many see power and wealth as an obstacle to wisdom. Wealth, power, and strength are not inherently evil - in fact they offer the opportunity to make the world a better place. It is attachment to these things and others that causes evil to come into the world, as we believe that things which are outside of ourselves (this applies even in the case of love) somehow belong to us, we are entitled to them, because we want them.
Though, perhaps I misunderstood something in your video which has led to this disagreement.
This.
An interesting point of view
By advocating for unattached action, you just debunked Buddhism and went through the historical process of philosophical journey in ancient india and the resulting decline of Buddhism.
@@Ravi9A I'm really curious what you mean when you say that “advocating for unattached action debunks Buddhism.” The only thing I can think of is that you mean Buddhism advocates for unattached non-action, which I think requires a very selective reading of Buddhist scripture.
That being said, I agree about the decline of Buddhism. Though this mirrors the fall of the Jedi, as both the Buddhist adepts and Jedi refrain from taking power for themselves and ultimately cost their own fall.
This man is correct.
Looks like another great one coming up.
Yes, one of my favorite force wielders! My favorite dialog with him is when he's discussing the war against Malak with Carth, and how it's important, but not the most important thing to have ever happened.
I'd love to get the script of this great piece of art
docs.google.com/document/d/105gLEypEVWtzdcw086RcMrRTbF8EEsObwLrJjp1R8uY/edit?usp=sharing
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Is there an archive for all of your videos? I'm currently working on improving my writing and your glorious text would be good help
@@thore2910 Since you asked, yes, I do have an archive of my videos. I plan to announce it soon. You can find it at rikafag.hns.to
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name., wow! Who is the host? Won't bother you if I create a huge network load someday?
@@veirant5004 The hosts are decentralized on the sia network. You can find them at sia.tech/
10/10, would give up the force to love best girl kreia.
best girl *JarJar
Ftfy
I’d take Briana any day
You've must taken some blaster in your head while i am not looking
Love doesn't save anyone in Star Wars....but you just gave us a few examples of it doing so.
I think you're conflating "Personal Love" with attachment, which I should add aren't inherently forbidden, "Teach yourself to let go" is not the same as "Learn to never have". The relationship between Luke and Vader is the subject of much speculation, but if you think that Luke's love for Vader is solely based on a universal ideal than what are his feelings towards the Emperor in that same situation?
It should also go without saying but I don't think you give enough weight to the distinct ethos of the original trilogy and Lucas' return to it in the Prequels, the ethos of hermit Yoda are not the same as Jedi Council Yoda, and neither are solely what Luke's own beliefs are.
Personal love *is* attachment.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Everytime? I feel like maybe the problem is our definition of terms. What is love? What is attachment? In Star Wars if not in reality.
My attempt to define it: it's something outside of yourself which becomes essential to your 'self'. And not just your self-image.
But the main thrust of my comment had more to do with attachment, a common refrain when criticizing the Jedi, is how they forbid attachments, but it's not so simple. Attachments aren't the problem it's dealing with their loss, and wanting to control them where things become problematic. Anakin loving Padme isn't bad, it's Anakin's inability to deal with her loss that leads him to attempt to subvert the natural order: to end change (chaos) and become permanent in the universe, whether it's to stop people from dying or to create a permanent order in the universe.
I already defined love in the video: Love is a strong, emotionally intimate relationship that combines an intense valuing of a partner on the deepest level and enjoyment of life with that partner; it is, in a general sense, a deeper personal attachment to another living being based on who they are and how they matter to you.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. That's a perfectly fine definition outside of the context of what we're talking about. Inside the context of the Star Wars, it uses terms to define love that are without definition. Deepest level and enjoyment of life, is not helpful, what is a deeper level of of connection? what is enjoying life? What is attachment to another person? What is attachment?
I see your point and it certainly stands well enough as presented, but it IS shown that you can learn to love as well as be a force user no problem. Your statement that it never happened neglects the entire arc of Luke and Mara Jade entirely. Luke himself is the embodiment of what Jolee preaches but doesn't himself do. In fact Luke's academy as a whole goes out of its way to teach this as seen in the Young Jedi Knight books. Yes, most certainly as a rule of the star wars universe its extremely difficult to be both force sensitive and form attatchment but as seen from the post endor era its not impossible and can be done and taught.
Exactly! Just because you have the force doesn't have any bearing on your ability to raise a family the same as anyone else. Just because superheroes have great power doesn't mean they can't fall in love. It's no different for force-users despite how much StarWars would like you to believe otherwise, or this video for that matter.
"Luke never had a wife!" - George Lucas, a decade before the Disney buyout
I'm kinda new in the SW universe and after finally watching all the movies I started to think exactly that, and more importantly how dangerous the Force is to the galaxy, and suddenly TLJ Luke started making complete sense to me.
I talk about TLJ Luke's view that the Force is dangerous to the galaxy in my video *The Foundations of Star Wars.*
The video literally stated what Lucas said about how children teach you compassion and love unconditionally. On the next scene the video show how children who are too old will not be trained due to risk of having attachments. If taken the two together, we can see that children’s unconditional love is not the universal unconditional love you tried to define here. Quite the contrary, children teach you unconditional (com)passion to individuals (I.e. attachment). Saying that padme did not save anakin because of love is also not a fair argument. In the Jedi teaching love is suppressed, and not taught in the way that grey Jedi wanted it to be. Anakin was not taught how to love and gave in to his fear. And even if someone cannot saved by love, that is not necessarily a universal truth. Nothing is completely foolproof and just because there are failures do not mean that it cannot succeed (and obviously vice versa).
It's contradictory on Lucas's part, for sure. If children teach you compassion, why do you need the Jedi to teach Force Sensitive children to let go and not form attachments?
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. and if it's YOUR children, wouldn't that be attachment? You said Luke doesn't have any meaningful attachment to Anakin, but Vader does have an attachment to Luke
Vader literally never interacted with Luke beyond fighting with him, so there is no attachment. Vader is literally told by Palpatine that he has a son twenty years later in Empire Strikes Back.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. he still tries to turn him and not kill him, and he's definitely being possessive about him
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name.
It’s 3am here and I’m having an unbearable episode hay fever so sorry if my not making the most coherent argument here:
it is contradictory only if you read it as Vader being saved by a universal unconditional Jedi love rather than a child’s unconditional love to his family. Lucas’s clip praised children’s love and not Jedi’s love, the opposite of your argument.
Now it has been a very very long time since I last watched star war but I don’t think there is no attachment between Luke and anakin. I could be wrong but iirc Anakin invited Luke to rule the galaxy together, it also feels like they sense each other via the force, and Luke reaction after knowing that Vader was his father also shows strong emotion between them. It is also noteworthy that Luke, who is only trained during adulthood with very little teaching of suppressing love (comparatively at least), is the one that saved anakin.
And if we are to talk about how personal love did not save anyone, then surely we can also attribute all failings of the Jedi as the failing of its doctrine as well with the same standard.
One thing about Jolee's philosophy: back in the days of his youth, it would actually have been pretty mainstream. In the Tales of the Jedi, which is actually set right before the war with Exar Kun (where Jolee had to fight his wife), the main hero, Nomi Sunrider, was a widow and had a daughter. And there was also one Cathar couple in these comics.
Your videos are the only thing nowadays that make me feel anything positive towards Star Wars.
Always glad to see a new video from you pop up. Star Wars related, or about some other topic.
“attachment leads to jealousy, the shadow of greed that is.” This stood out to me. Reminds me a lot of Yuno Gasai. Aswell as BPD. For example, getting so attached to someone that you become JEALOUS of the attention they give to someone else for you are GREEDY for all of their attention, which is often a trait of those whom have BPD.
Again, it boils down to the false philosophy of Lucas about short-term pleasure and long-term happiness. To him, romantic love his short-term pleasure and loving all is long-term happiness. This is, once more, a false dichotomy. Not in Star Wars, because he designed it to be so through artificial rules, but it is simply not applicable to real life, and this is why characters like Jolee or EU Luke or Kyle Katarn are so loved. Because they defy these rules that just destroy the enjoyment of the setting. People love Star Wars for the battles, the adventure, the cool powers - not because of its eternal message of "love bad, be selfless while giving me billions!".
I do love the Star Wars because of its philosophy and the tragedy that is the fact that the Galaxy Far Far Away is a terrible place condemned to eternal conflict because of the Force. I can find battles, cool powers and adventures in other places. Everyone has different reasons to enjoy a same thing.
@@alfonsogarciamonserrate4979 The Force is like the Pantheon of the Greek Gods. It represents various aspects of human psychology and of Nature, but by itself it is not the primary determiner of events in the Star Wars universe. The primary determiner of events are the people who make their own choices either based on greed or based on compassion. The Force is not evil because the Force is the natural order of things. The force of gravity, for example, is part of the natural order of things. The Dark Side is evil because the Dark Side is unnatural.
@@kaizokujimbei143 I'm not saying that the Force is evil, but the major conflics in the galaxy are usually between the jedi and the sith, and both wouldn't fight and bicker if the Force wasn't a thing.
@@alfonsogarciamonserrate4979 They wouldn't fight and bicker if the Force wasn't a thing, you say? Well, that's funny. 'Cause I just came from the Kings and Generals channel having just finished watching a video about the 4th Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and I could swear that those atrocities were definitely committed because of greed with God being totally absent for the duration of the destruction of countless pieces of art to make cheap coin.
@@kaizokujimbei143 I don't say that there wouldn't be war. But in the Galaxy Far Far Away the conflict between jedi and sith is the detonant for most of the great wars. And they will keep repeating themselves over and over.
2021 and there is still someone out there dissecting this game. You have no idea how well appreciated this is
Also @5:00 why is Carth in his underwear?
Same reason why the Handmaiden is in her underwear in my Kreia video.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. You can spar with Carth on the Ebon Hawk?
@@LifeologyEducationProgram of course you can, haven't you scene gameplay of people doing it on TH-cam?
PART 1
In the Starwars universe, the notion of compassion is defined as denying yourself, sacrificing your own needs for others, and letting go of all your attachments, but it outright ignores the fact that offering compassion to others doesn't directly rely on self-sacrifice, denying your own desires, or letting go of everything you fear to lose. Compassion does not always come at the giver's expense, and it doesn't need to. For example, you could be homeless and barely have enough money to buy food at the end of the day. But then you see a starving dog on the side of the road, and even though it comes at your expense to share your food with the dog, you decide to show the animal compassion and offer it half your sandwich. Now consider this; you are a rich person walking down the street who just bought a meal to go on your way home from work, and you see a starving dog on the side of the road. You decide to show the dog compassion and offer it half a sandwich. Both the poor person and the rich person were willing and able to show compassion for the dog and give it something to eat. While showing compassion is at the poor person's expense and not the rich person's expense, it doesn't change the fact that both chose to show compassion to the dog. The rich person did not have to sacrifice his own needs or desires to show compassion to another. Compassion is being selfless to others, regardless whether it is at your expense or not. It may or not inconvenience you, and showing compassion doesn't mean you're not allowed to 'want' things or deny your relationships with others. If your friends invite you to a picnic, you're giving up your time to spend with them, but if something else comes up, such as your sister asking you that very day if you can babysit their daughter, you're giving up your time with your friends and giving up your time in general to watch your sister's daughter. It may feel like a sacrifice if you're not fond of picnics or babysitting, or if you don't like your niece or your sister as much, but if you enjoy picnics and love hanging out with your sister and niece, it's not really a sacrifice at all, merely a change of plans. "An unexpected surprise to be sure, but a welcome one." -Palpatine.
So compassion is not directly linked to letting go of your needs and attachments, yet StarWars portrays it this way, and the jedi believe being selfless means letting go of their own needs and attachments in every aspect of life. This extreme philosophy preaches unconditional compassion to all, almost a 'love your neighbor as yourself' sort of deal, yet the jedi go one step further, and create a system that is emotionally damning for the jedi as a whole. They believe in 'love your neighbor more than yourself.' This may seem noble, but when you forget yourself, you betray yourself. No matter how much you try to help others, you cannot do so without caring for your own needs as well. For example, how can a parent care for their children if they can't even provide for themself? Then look at all the people who aren't jedi or sith. They have romance, families, friends, attachments, and yet most of those people don't turn out evil or give in to a perpetual cycle of greed. One could argue the force is to blame, as it enables one to seek power and make their greed a reality, that the force is a curse, but this is incorrect. If the force caused people to be evil, then every superhero with superhuman powers would be evil too, if we believe what the jedi believe, which is 'power always corrupts.' But power does not always corrupt. "With power comes great responsibility." -Uncle Ben. This is why Jolee Bindo arguing 'the jedi should be teaching how to control your passions while being in love' resonates with so many people. Because Jolee understands attachment is not the precursor to greed. Uncontrolled passion in one's attachments leads to greed and jealousy, but not the attachments themselves. Instead of the jedi teaching 'not to love another,' they should be teaching 'how to love another responsibly.' Though that does create a funny image of jedi sitting down for marriage counseling and 'couples night.' Lol.
I disagree with the video when it states Vader saved Luke out of unconditional love as the jedi would have it, as if Vader finally learned something the jedi tried to teach him all along. No. Vader has been a sith a long time, and while Luke may have spared his father out of the conditional love the jedi believe in, Vader would not have shown that same compassion to any other person but Luke. Luke was his son, and the son of his beloved wife, Padme. He saved Luke because of his attachment to them, not out of some love for all life or because it was the right thing to do. It felt right to do 'for Luke.' 'For his son.' Not because it felt right for the entire galaxy or was the best thing for everyone. This could be called 'selfish love,' but Vader offered it to Luke all the same. Though by saving Luke and killing the emperor, Vader consequently saved the galaxy as well, even if that was not his goal. His only goal was to save Luke, whether that meant saving the galaxy or not. Either way, he fulfills the prophecy of the chosen one, by bringing the force back into balance. And in the end it took the destruction of both the jedi and the sith for that to happen, because both force-sensitive factions were wrong.
Jolee Bindo is flawed, yes, and like Yoda and many other jedi, became apathetic in the end. Both the jedi and sith are also apathetic. Mace Windu is a perfect example of the cold, stoic jedi who cannot sympathize with or understand the emotions of others when it matters. The jedi believe in emotional detachment to the point they lose their ability to understand the emotions of others, or become apathetic to individuals, caring only about the collective good, even when what's best for all condemns the concerns of a single person or small group of people. Conversely, the sith may have a better understanding of emotions in themselves and others, but choose to put their own feelings and desires above everyone else's. "Apathy is death." -Kreia. This is true. Yet when Jolee joins Revan in the game, his life changes, travelling with someone who seeks to make a difference and actively change things everywhere he goes. So Jolee is no longer an apathetic cowardly bystander, forced into action as a part of Revan's crew. And so he doesn't remain trapped in a useless, apathetic state on Kashyyyk.
I agree and want to add the story of episodes 1 to 6 are obviously steered and dictated by Lucas own love life. He lost Martha Lucas because of his emotional unavailability during the productions of tesb and his want for money for his artist commune once meant to be Skywalker ranch.
Luke was always right in his assessments in the OT because he personifies the good will of mankind, even in spite of the evils that have been perpetrated before and by others. This is what defines Lucas himself. He used the prequels to cast doubt on the Jedi being the big good with the details of their lifestyle and the Sith being pure evil through count dooku who didn't have any ill intentions at all and was duped by the hierarchy games of the confederacy actually led by Palpatine.
I wish we could have more details about what lucas wanted to implement in episodes 7 to 9 but I am sure it would have been similarly to the duel of the fates script and kreia a rejection of the failings of jedi philosophy after Luke gets to know a new student and with what he learns by teaching her creates a truly moral code that can be lived by after which he finds true peace. Lucas always placed focus on the story only being complete after 9 or 12 films but was content after 2005 because due to the bad reception of the prequels by fans and the stress this caused him he didn't feel like this all being worth it when the core of his message is already very much visible and the events I describe are pretty much implied through the pre Disney concept art made under Lucas for 7 to 9 and the legends books. The logical progression is too obvious unlike in the Disney movies where Luke took on the persona of a know it all with no hope for the future because he was written to make a senseless mistake which in turn makes all of this fall solely unto Rey who might restart and reform the order off screen eventually but is overwhelmed by this task in every single moment.
Lucas only mistakes are that he cared too much about other people's opinions and couldn't separate the good from the bad new insights and that he became lazy in doing any real film industry work after 2008, evidenced by his only spending time with the tcw and robot chicken writers and watching family guy. Had he taken a more proactive role like in 1977 he would have been able to realize his vision, but he kind of lost himself in the fantasy of being Luke, of being saved by someone who is not himself.
I think the rich man bringing the dog home with him would have been real compassion. Or the right thing to do. What could both the homeless man and the rich man offer the stray dog? Which one was more compassionate? I'd say the homeless guy was more compassionate. I think the cost does matter. What they could give.
@@anymaru A fascinating perspective.
Both the rich man and the homeless man show compassion to the dog. I wasn't comparing which one was more compassionate, merely that both can show compassion regardless the cost of the sacrifice to themselves. The cost to the homeless man to show compassion in that instance was greater than the rich man's, but the rich man still showed the same compassion even if it was less of an expense to him personally. They both chose to feed the hungry dog.
You offer the unique perspective suggesting that if we can afford to give more, we should. Those who can afford to show more compassion due to wealth, influence, or other factors they could use to make the world a better place. Tying compassion to personal responsibility. Interesting.
The rich man was not less compassionate than the homeless man, but it is true he might have the means to do more for the dog. However, I don't think the only answer is to ask the rich man to bring the dog home or adopt the dog. If the man is staying at a hotel, living in an apartment on business, is there on vacation, or lives somewhere pets aren't allowed, he couldn't take the dog home with him or adopt it. Maybe the man is allergic to dogs. Or he lives with someone who's allergic. Depending on the situation, the man might not be able to take the dog home with him. But depending on the circumstances, the rich man could bring the dog to a shelter to treat any medical conditions and see if it has a microchip and belongs to someone. If the dog doesn't belong to someone he could adopt it himself if he has enough time outside work to care for a pet, or he could offer the chance to adopt the dog to someone he knows might want a dog, or he could find someone who has the time and resources to look after the dog until someone can be found to adopt it.
The rich man could do several things to help the dog beyond feeding it half a sandwich and walking away. This is true. But should we expect all rich people to disrupt their lives for every instance where they could go the extra mile? If we expect every rich person to do more for everyone else than those who are less fortunate, then rich people will feel pressured and obligated to do compassionate things for the sake of 'putting on a good face' instead of doing so with genuine motivations at heart. It won't be long before being rich becomes a burden of society expecting them to always give more than the person of average wealth. This makes being rich or well-to-do undesirable, and may cause those with wealth to hide it from the rest of the world for the sake of avoiding public expectations. It may in fact cause wealthy people, who could do more for others, to hoard their wealth instead, or try to appear more humble by not revealing they even have money to spare. We cannot depend on the wealthy to show us pity and take care of us just because they can. If the rich give too much the rest of us are enabled to be lazy and have no incentive to become rich ourselves because if we did we would have to be responsible for showing more compassion for others too.
I think it is unfair to ask more from those who have more. Instead, I believe we should teach 'everyone' to show kindness to others regardless of wealth, influence, status, etc. Everyone can show compassion, no matter how small the kindness. If everyone was more compassionate and less selfish, more people would feel compelled to show kindness to another, and we wouldn't have to expect extra effort from those who have more because everyone is pitching in and helping each other instead. Is your kindness any less important than the person who donates millions to charity? It might not help as many people, and maybe it won't impact people as profoundly, but is the small kindness you showed someone else any less important? It still means something to someone else no matter how small. But we can't sacrifice everything we are or deprive ourselves what we need to survive either. All of us have basic physical and emotional needs. If we can't help ourselves we can't offer others the help they need. It provides us a just reason to aspire for wealth. If we have a genuine desire to help others, not motivated by status or fame, and merely want to help others, we will go the extra mile of our own free will to become wealthy so that others might benefit from it. We shouldn't be asking 'how much can I give?' We should be asking 'what can I do to help?'
if your definition of "save" is material well-being, then yeah love won't save you. you need a better word
Love saves you the same way a tongue-eating louse saves a fish's ability to swallow.
Star wars: Attachment will turn you to the dark side
Fanboys: Noooo! My grey jedi is wise to use both side of the force, he use lightning and has twilek waifu and save everyone.
Star wars: But you can't-
Fanboys: Blah-blah, I'm grey jedi! Jedi and sith just extremes! I'm in balance!
Ma god...
Mate, this is pure gold.
Nice, Very good slap on 2nd degree thinker.
I'll take force lightning and a twilek harem. Peace is a lie, muthafuckas.
It was Luke's attachment to Vader which made him try to turn the latter back to the Light and Vader's attachment to Luke which made him actually do so. That, in turn, is what resulted in the death of the Emperor. So, Star Wars seems to actually be saying pretty much the opposite.
I read that as Femboys instead of Fanboys
'12 Ways Not be a Damned Fool: A Beginner's Guide to Life.' -by Jolee Bindo
Thank you so much for making this, I've waited awhile for it lol.
He mentions Revan and how she is the perfect example of how love doesn't save anyone, so I guess the other, cannon, ending does not exist? Revan uses his love for Bastile to bring her back from the dark side. It is his love for her and their child that keeps him going through the centuries, resisting Vitiate. Or you can attribute this to Revan being OP and doing whatever the writers wanted him to do. Your choice.
I take it as the writer trying to argue that love does save you and then forgot to add it anywhere else.
I have not seen anyone write this before, so I will write it myself. I apologize if it was written earlier. The author points out that Jolee was wrong in his statement that "love will not condemn you", while refuting the argument that Vader was saved by love for his son. However, in the same game, Revan saved Bastila with his love. How do you think it happened?
Not only that (and I know this is a year old, so sorry for the necro), but I find it hard to believe that it was only out of love for everyone that Luke decided to save Vader. For one there’s a ton of dialogue about how he has to save Anakin, BECAUSE he’s his father. It’s never portrayed as “I am a Jedi, and I must love everyone unconditionally, even if they have done horrible things,” but very clearly as “Even though I’ve never met my father, he is the only family I have left (beyond Leia), and I feel a duty to save him, because I know there’s good in him (as he is my father).” Secondly, Vader HIMSELF saved Luke because he, HIS SON, showed him love and affection. The author makes the argument that it was the fact that a person put faith in Vader, but I highly doubt that such a scenario would’ve went the same way if just any old Jedi had done it (and we know that this never worked). It worked because Luke was Anakin’s son, and Anakin, as a father, had unconditional love for him. He supports this with George’s quote, but I think that quote is being misused here. Lucas says “I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me,” but I don’t think that means “I care about this person, HIM BEING MY SON NOT WITHSTANDING,” because immediately after he says “I will throw away everything that I have,” which would imply that his line about its meaning to Anakin was more so to do with the CONSEQUENCES of the action, and not the CIRCUMSTANCES of how he found himself to be in the situation.
........So you're telling me Thanos would be the greatest Jedi who ever lived.
He let go of Gamora.
Compared to Kreia’s plan, 50 percent of everyone disappearing would Be quite generous
@@Abdega Yeah. But it won't get rid of the force itself. Honestly had Kreia plan was successful and the Exiled became everything she had hoped for then. It would've create the society that we live today. A life without the force.
14:30
I was expecting *APATHY IS DEATH!* What I didn't expect was the volume at which it would boom through my headphones.
You made me drop my tablet!
HAHAHAHAHA
What's more, Jolee's "grey" alignment stems from the game writers' fundamental misunderstanding of the force. It's not a slider with dark on one end and light on the other, and then a "sweet spot" in the middle. I blame RPG mechanics for that.
George said himself that the light side is balance, and the dark side is imbalance. Imagine you're walking a highwire tightrope stretched between two sky scrapers. You're maintaining your balance, but at any moment, one misstep could send you plummeting into the abyss. The highwire is the light side, and the abyss is the dark. That is what it means to "fall".
Wow that was pretty deep analysis of light side and dark side. Plus it also emphasize that nobody can control the balance and imbalance of the force. Because it's proven that the individual themselves will inevitably fall into the temptations of the dark side or becoming a Gray Jedi coward who leaves the galaxy to suffer until he or she dies which connects to "apathy is death."
You understand the Force.
If this is true though, then it also makes Lucas's chosen one prophecy pointless. Because there will always be people who fall of the tightrope into imbalance and the dark side. You can't permanently restore balance if that balance is so inherently fragile, and yes, I am aware that legends suffered from that problem too.
@@annekelly3485
There's also the problem, in both continuities, of there being natural wellsprings of the dark side.
This is brilliant
Ahh yeah, nothing is better than philosophy from a Galaxy Far Far Away.
I appreciate the thought that goes into your videos, but have you considered that, like very few other fictional settings ever, the vast majority of SW fans are almost instinctively rejecting the Canonical philosophical underpinnings of the setting Re: The Force as it affects the lives of Force Sensitives? The popularity of Mara Jade Skywalker in the context of her being Luke’s wife, and the mother of his/their son would seem to suggest this. I happen to believe that most people are simply adopting their favorite head canon on this subject, because they don’t and never will find any enjoyment in philosophical points that run in almost diametric opposition to the western works they consume? In other words, very few people like SW for what it’s “supposed” to be, and many enjoy it for how easily they can change it to mean what they want it to be. SW is supposed to be escapist fantasy, with the purpose of entertaining the consumer. Since the vast, vast majority “want Jolee to be right” , he “becomes right” due to his interpretation being more in line with what they want SW to be.
There are two aspect to this. The first is that people enjoyed the EU lore before Lucas established the rules regarding the setting and the Force in the prequels. In that era, the Force was just magic powers without proper rules on how Force sensitives became evil beyond just becoming evil by wanting power. The second aspect is that people prefer it because it touches on the desire of fans to live in Star Wars and self-insert as a Jedi without any negatives. It's echoed in your words: ''people want Jolee to be right, therefore he should be right.'' And that would be fair before the Prequels, but he isn't. And as shown with Carth and Jolee's own romantic experience, he is wrong.
Regardless, people can believe whatever they want. But if we want to better understand what Star Wars was intended to be, as Lucas envisioned it (the G-canon), we must narrow it down signifigantly.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. And this is precisely why I still hate the Prequels, despite it apparently becoming very accepted to love them (mostly through memes). Because they directly ruined Star Wars, and transformed it into something incredibly mean-spirited. I've said this for years now, but alas...
I honestly don't think there's much to be gained by trying to understand what Star Wars is "supposed" to be, versus what the fans "want it" to be. Because at the end of the day, both sentiments can overlap just as much as they differ. Case in point: the sequel trilogy, which saw the vision of a fan (Abrams) clash with the vision of someone more interested in the thematic and philosophical implications of the material (Johnson). What both of them had in common is that they were very rigid about their beliefs and refused to compromise, and the trilogy suffered as a result. And if Star Wars is gonna keep making money and be in our faces forever, I'd much rather it be a well of interesting and diverse ideas (even if at times contradicting itself) than a series of strct guidelines that tell you what it is "supposed" to be, be it by fans, or Disney executives, or even Lucas himself.
I've been binging your videos after I decided to play KotOR II for the second time. And man, what horrible life the Jedi and people of the Galaxy lived. I'd rather be an average joe working as a waiter in that diner from Episode II. But if I have to be a Jedi, I pray that I could draw meaning from the struggle. So that if I had to sacrifice myself or facing my own end, I could do it for something meaningful and with no regrets.
Thanks for the good work!
I believe what's missing in the analysis of Vader's redemption is that there's a difference between unconditional love for all mankind and unconditional love for those you care about. In Lucas's quote he specifies that children teach the parent compassion and loving unconditionally. A parent's love for their child ideally is a love where the parent has no self-interest and just wants what's best for the child even at the expense of their own desires. Anakin is saying "I care about this person, regardless of what it means for me". Not, "I care about everyone in the galaxy regardless of what it means to me".
Christian Agape love in its purest ideal is the love God has for all creation, an unconditional love for everyone. And that is what both the Bible and the Jedi Order aim to strive towards. But that is difficult to achieve even for the Saints. One begins within their own family, then later spreads that love to the wider community.
It's true that Luke didn't have a positive personal relationship with Anakin but he did have a personal relationship. We saw that in full force at the end of ESB when Vader instead of striking Luke dead tried to get Luke to join him and revealed their familial bond. Then later they were able to communicate telepathically through their new connection. There's a reason that others like Ahsoka who tried to turn Anakin back from the dark side failed. Luke and Anakin shared a special relationship through their bond as father and son. It was Luke's unconditional love not for everyone, but Anakin specifically that saved the day in the end.
You're misunderstanding the two types of love under a single word. Personal attachment in which you would do anything for the person you love is what people typically mean when they say unconditional love. In Star Wars, unconditional love does not mean that but to love all of life.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. I don't see the evidence for why there can only be 1 type of unconditional love in Star Wars. Going back to Agape, if someone theoretically loved everyone on Earth unconditionally except for 1 person, does that disqualify their love for being Agape? No, it's about extending your selflessness from one individual to another and expanding the net of who that encompasses. You become attached if you expect something from someone else in return for your love and rely on that bond. But that's not what Luke was doing in RoTJ.
@Schmitz Cinema Studies has a point, I think. In both classical and Christian philosophy, "storge" is love between family, such as father and son, and not "agape", which is not directed at any particular person. Luke and Vader feel attached to one another due to being family, as evidenced for example by Luke's unwillingness to leave his father, carrying his father's body from the second Death Star at the risk of Luke's own life just so that he could have a cremation ceremony for him. I think this is an example of Methodism and its belief in the importance of love for family (and of possible redemption) bleeding into Star Wars, which is why this seems to be an exception to the fundamentals of Star Wars based upon the Buddhist principle of non-attachment. Christianity has some reservations about personal love, but not as many as Buddhism; if I'm not mistaken, George Lucas has even commented that "children redeem their parents".
It's not that there can only be one type of unconditional love but that Lucas defines compassion to be unconditional love in the literal sense of the term: to love without conditions. All love is conditional, even though the common usage of unconditional is to love with such intensity that you would do anything. You have unconditional love for the love of your life, but you wouldn't if she cheated on you, murdered your family, etc. With attachments, it is always conditional to who they are and how much they matter to you. But in Star Wars, Lucas defines compassion (having an awareness or understanding of the pain of others, accompanied with the wish to relieve it) with having agape love for all of life and to live selflessly for all of life.
You might disagree that Luke doesn't have that with Vader, but Luke also can't explain why he unconditionally loves his father except that he does.
@@SchmitzCinemaStudies I just reread your comment and I think I misunderstood your point. As far as I understand the terms, Luke's love for Vader, and vice versa, is an example of "storge" and not "agape", but that's not a bad thing at all. I do think that, even though the video is well researched, our intrepid uploader is wrong about how George Lucas views personal love, such as storge and philia, the kinds of love that exist between family and friends, by not taking into account Lucas's Methodist views: personal love seems to be an exception to the otherwise very Buddhist-inspired rules of Star Wars (George Lucas self-describes as a "Methodist Buddhist"). It's at least possible that Lucas is skeptical about eros, which is related to lust, as both Buddhism and Christianity take a dim view of it, and in the story of Star Wars it becomes a major reason Anakin falls to the Dark Side (even though in George Lucas's original drafts, when Anakin and Vader were different, Anakin's romance is portrayed positively), but Lucas definitely believes in the importance, and redemptive power, of love for family and friends (storge and philia) even though they qualify as "attachments" in Buddhist doctrine. For example, Luke chooses to follow his feelings when he goes to save Han and Leia, and thus saves them, despite Obi-Wan and Yoda warning him of the danger of attachment and that Vader could trap and turn him. Later, Luke's and Vader's love for one another as family, even though that connection between them is arguably arbitrary, proves to be the key thing that brings Vader back from the Dark Side. So in short, I think the uploader is failing to take into account how Lucas's Christian background influences his views, especially with regards to family and friendship.
What is interesting: Jedi preach letting go of attachments, but then encourage attachment with the master/apprentice relationship.
We see this contradiction reach nasty end on a few occasions, most notably when Mace Windu nearly falls trying to save Depa Bilaba in Shatterpoint.
The last few seconds of this vid were particularly impactful for me because TH-cam then immediately autoplayed the Breaking Bad theme song. Going from a message on self-denial to that was such a rollercoaster.
The problem with the Carth example is that there was supposed to be a third ending where you and he affirm your love, fight Bastilla, and die together on the Star Forge. But, like many things, was ultimately scrapped.
All the movies and games have different things left on the editing room floor. At the end of the day we sort of have to assume they cut these sorts of things for a reason, because like, how long would that ending have took to complete from what was already made if they wanted to?
Wait, you’re channel is still alive???
5 more years to go.
Always have been.
It's been so long I've forgotten how good your videos are!
Please don't stop uploading videos. Your editing and the quality of the content you make is too good.
But if you need to take breaks every now and then, don't think twice about not doing so.
I'm just a fan who would love to see more of your work.
Luke tried to save Vader from his death. But when Vader asked him to let him go (Not with those words) Luke looked into the Force and nodded. He had loved his father, showed him there was a person in the whole Galaxy who was unwilling to give up on him. But was also following the ways of the Force, he let go of his Father.
What it comes down to ultimately is that human nature is corrupt, through that corruption we are compelled to do what is evil, no amount of knowledge can counter this.
This is a nature issue and we are in a paradoxical state that we need and want love in order to have meaning and will in this life but the paradox is in that we are naturally inclined towards mentalities and behaviours that invariably destroy that love.
This is unironically my favorite philosophy channel. No bullshit and just good content.
Honestly the videos being about star wars is just a bonus
Thank you so much for everything you do. Every video you put out has been wonderful to watch and learn from. Can't wait for more.
I once strongly wished for Gray Jedi to be a perfect mix of Jedi and Sith.
And now I'm so happy that they aren't.
The conflict of this universe means a lot more to me on a personal level because I was wrongly percieving it as a person. My thoughts were influenced by my desires and the feeling of having to face the ugly truth that there's no way to avoid a sacrifice, that there's no "best" answer to the question is wierdly refreshing. Now I'm more aware that the world around me isn't utopia. Through listening to another's analysis of a fictional universe I grew as a person.
"To believe in an ideal, is to be willing to betray it".
Thank you.
Ive always seen it as the Jedi see themselves as a conduit for the force and the sith see the force as a conduit for themselves (ultimately their power)... how easy would it be to believe that your ability to connect with the fundamental energy of the universe is a gift for you to use as you see fit (its no wonder why the Jedi grew to *fear* attachment and were destroyed by it). Almost everyone would love to use that power. However the clarity that detachment would bring someone with that kind of innate universal connection would be incredible, and unbelievably difficult - to not want to *use* the force for what you see as just and right, but to allow yourself to become one with the force and be its avatar for balance. The coolest thing about that is THAT is what allowed some of the Jedi to retain their consciousness after death.
(reasons why Yoda's arc in season 6 of The Clone Wars is some of my favorite Star Wars ever made)
Nameless channel is back!
The jedi sacrifice their humanity to hold onto power
The sith attempt to hold both, but in the end they hold neither
The Man, he knows that their humanity, their love is far more important than power, so he relinquishes said power
You point out that it wasn't Luke's attachment to his father that saved Vader which is correct it was his compassion toward all life, but it was Vader's attachment to his son that saved him. There is a reason why Luke, his son, was able to save Vader and not just any other Jedi. It is because of the love Vader had for his family that he could break the control Sidious had over him. Without his family ties to Luke, Vader would have never killed Sidious, and the empire would have continued to rule the galaxy. Love can save you and Jolee was right.
No. Vader saw himself in Luke and had compassion. Lucas even explained it.
"A Jedi is never lonely they live on compassion. They live on helping people, and people love them. They can love people back. But when that person dies, they let go. Those who do not let go become miserable. That's the lonely place." - George Lucas.
The Jedi can love and have relationships but can not obsess over those relationships. So basically they can have attachment but an attachment to attachments (greed) is what causes the fall. A combination of controlling passions while in love and how a person handles the pain that will follow after love is what the Jedi should teach, and not to cut yourself off from all attachment. This is literally what Jolee is telling the player and George's line about how Jedi can love individuals supports what Jolee says.
"Vader saw himself in Luke and had compassion" Agreed, but look at the context. Vader didn't just save Luke because of the compassion Luke showed him. The scene where the Emperor is torturing Luke, and Luke then stretches out his hand crying out "Father" is to show how emotional ties that are not selfish (like Anakins love for Padme) can pull people back from the dark path they are on.
@@malcolmcampbell9126
"so basically they can have attachments''
No. Lucas is saying that they can have compassion for them but not attachments. He literally says that Jedi cannot have attachments multiple times.
@@malcolmcampbell9126 Anakin literally tells Padme in Attack of the Clones ''Attachments are forbidden''.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. what would you call Obi Wan’s relationship with Anakin other than an attachment? Obviously Obi Wan cares for this person more than the average citizen in Star Wars. It’s not just ultimate compassion or Obi Wan would not have said “You were my brother Anakin. I loved you”. This is an attachment that Obi Wan has, but the key is he was able to let go of this attachment when the time came, where as Anakin was not able to let go of Padme.
Attachments aren’t bad it’s the fear of losing them that led to the dark side. That is why Obi Wan can stay on the light side because he doesn’t obsess over Satine or Anakin or Qui Gonn. Who are all people he is attached to. The Jedi say to separate yourself from attachment because the fear of lose is too dangerous and corruptive, but Jolee says to embrace attachments while training yourself to deal with the lose and pain that will follow. Jolee’s philosophy works within Star Wars.
On George saying that the Jedi can’t have attachments (this is my interpretation so feel free to disagree because I could 100% be wrong) when Lucas says that Jedi can’t have attachments I don’t think he is saying that attachments are fundamentally wrong. He is saying the Jedi religion teaches that attachments aren't allowed. He said in a quote “once you become attached to something, then you become afraid of losing it” it is this fear that drives people down the dark path, so if you are a person who has attachments to people (like Obi Wan) but chose to not let the fear corrupt you then attachments are fine even if the Jedi code says no attachments.
I understand that the Jedi forbid attachment what I am saying is that despite this a life that is centered in the light side of the force is possible while still having relationships and attachments.
I think it's like this with any power that a person gets... It's doesn't entirely destroy your sense of self but everytime you have a strength you have a power that pulls you in one way or another (the direction of complete selfless or selfish) every talent, that you've not worked hard for or not, pulls you in either of their direction, it becomes harder and harder to stay on the Middle ground and in the end you are better off without the talent.
For me this rings the most true to how I have depression, it's not a talent but a I believe a side-effect of intelligence, cuz the smarter you are the more you ponder the reason for being just existing and become depressed that you can do much better with your life.(this pulls you towards selfishness where you can do much better and not let go of emotions of grief)
Then there's the selfless part of depression where you feel you are completely worthless and give more worth to others than they actually are.
When you are like this it becomes really difficult to do things in moderation and stay on the Middle ground while on an point where you could fall either way
It seems to me the if you are a Force user and love something, you or what you love will die. Whether from selfishness or sacrificing yourself for your love, something has to die.
Pretty much.
I hope you will make analysis of the Dead Money one day.
I might make a video on Fallout New Vegas which would include Dead Money.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. then i saw wait eagerly.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Awesome
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. I would love to see fallout videos from your channel.
I still don't understand why after so many years the Jedi still choose to give up the attachment instead of the Force. But I guess this is why the Exile is so important. If I have to make a choice between those two, I would like to choose the attachment, being able to wield the force in Star Wars universe is a curse to me.
Because inherently, they don't want to just give up the power the force gives them. So they decide that if they have the power to do good. Then they should use it . Or alternatively, they take their power and use it to their benefit.
Because the force is not a curse. The force is power, and power does not automatically corrupt those who use it. All force-users have the choice to use it for good or evil. The force doesn't control those who use it or influence them to commit evil. The force is not a god or deity. Giving up the force is not only unnecessary, but a foolish waste of talent and ability force-users possess. It's not hard to understand. And giving up attachments is just as foolish, as they are part of human nature and vital for people to care about each other at all. The force is the energy in all life that gives a force-user special powers. "With power comes great responsibility." -Uncle Ben, Spiderman.
@@paigelocknane6401 well said. It’s all about balance within yourself and going with the flow. It’s strange people today are trying to make the Force out to be something bad that they should just blow off entirely. The whole deal with TLJ is nothing like EU. The point is to show what it means to find balance within yourself and look beyond yourself
Another fantastic video, thank you very much! I’ll continue to rewatch these until the end of time
that bit with GL at the end was really good. like it's obvious but the bit about compassion and giving, vs passion and greed, man.
Instead of looking at this through the lens of Luke and his father, look at it through the lens of Luke and his friends. Sure, Luke has compassion for everyone, but at the same time, I think it's fair to say he feels a personal attachment to his little hodgepodge crew. I think the thing that made the difference is that he wasn't raised with the force and Jedi code. He grew up as just a normal kid, and like you pointed out, normal people have to just move on. He got coping skills by being a regular moisture farmer dude; coping skills that Jedi are basically denied by the avoidance of attachment altogether.
Jolee, who did let himself feel those feelings in spite of the Jedi teachings, and learned to cope with them, was able to move past that loss without falling.
So, basically, my point comes down to this: Yoda argues with Obiwan that Luke is "too old" to train, but I think it's just the opposite. IMO, he was just old enough to train; he had experienced loss and learned to mourn in an appropriate way, he had experienced fear and learned to overcome it, and he had learned to trust in the force in the little bit of padawan training he'd gotten from Obiwan. It was the perfect time for Yoda to train him, because Luke was himself, a human being without the force (for all intents and purposes), before he became a Jedi.
Love your work. You are making me want to do a fifth play through of KOTOR
hey, just wanted to say : I love your videos, there's some great insight and the tone is fitting. hopefully you'll continue doing those
It's a very intelligent and compelling argument and video, but I feel the need to point out that the position you're arguing from is that all romantic (personal attachment) love is equal. This is, unfortunately, a mistake. The love stories we personally see in the Star Wars universe that supposedly prove the necessity of detachment are generally poor examples of a romantic attachment. Anakin and Padme are the prime example of the idea that attachment-love inevitably leads to ruin, but what kind of love was it that they had? They spent something like a week together when Anakin was a child, and plunged headlong into a romance almost immediately upon being reunited as young adults with no prior experience with love, knowing virtually nothing about one another and having personalities (if you want to be generous with that term) which had little to no connecting points. They then continued to pursue this relationship with no basis of chemistry, interaction, or emotional understanding entirely in secret and over long periods of separation, which creates a constant negative pressure upon each and provides no sustained amount of time to truly connect. What you're failing to consider here is that Anakin and Padme has a love story that didn't NEED the laws of the Star Wars universe against it to fail; any equivalent relationship in real life or another universe would have also been destined to fail spectacularly, whether that be an explosive separation or a joyless, miserable, increasingly loveless perpetuation.
By contrast, 1 of the few times we do see a Jedi love story work out to the better in Star Wars--ACTUALLY see it, mind you; we have only Jolee's and Juhani's after-the-fact recollections of their own failed romances to go on and thus cannot use them as evidence too substantially--is of that between Revan and Bastila. And while that also has a short lead-up, the writers of the game went out of their way to carefully craft a coming together of personalities that is and feels natural, based on interactions that genuinely deepen connections of knowledge and emotion between Revan and Bastila. Bastila and Revan have a love story with enough basis, enough emotional authenticity and effort put into it, that it is, as a romance, very solid and true to the ideals we hold of what an attachment-love is supposed to be like. And what do you know, THAT one actually worked out and resulted in not condemnation, but salvation.
Regarding the Carth side of the equation, again, the mistake is in interpreting it as exactly equal to all other attachment-loves. While far from being a poor romance, it's also pretty clearly does not form as compelling a connection as Bastila and Revan's would have been, and the writers did not seem to have as great a concern for it. MORE IMPORTANTLY, however, Revan's discarding of Carth's love for her represents a brute-forcing of an outside entity (the player) to go against the natural state of Revan's feelings. To pursue a romance with Carth requires Revan to connect with him at multiple points on a level which is decidedly morally good - you CAN pursue the Dark Side at the same time, but the behaviors and thoughts of the Dark Side's path are noticeably divorced from the behaviors and thoughts of falling in love with the decidedly good and noble Carth. The mentalities and sets of values required for both courses of actions are simply not compatible - if Revan truly does believe in the Sith way, then her dalliances with Carth simply cannot be fully genuine (whether or not she is aware of that fact). It's also all something of a moot point, anyway, as Revan canonically is male and does not romance Carth - so it's questionable whether this eventuality can even be brought up as a piece of evidence regardless; it has no more real bearing on the Star Wars universe than any scenario in which a player got a Game Over.
Romantic love is a highly volatile, inexplicable emotional connection in and of itself, and as it exists in our own universe, it comes in an endless variety of intensities and forms, some of which work to varying degrees, others of which do not. There is nothing about the human psyches of the Star Wars universe that gives any evidence that we should consider the concept of romantic love different enough within Star Wars as to be entirely uniform from 1 instance of it to the next. To dismiss the possibility of its functionality for the Jedi simply based upon a mere small handful of precedents, particularly when such examples contain such a clearly unsustainable and unhealthy love story as that of Anakin and Padme, is flawed. The preponderance of evidence with any weight that we can find in Star Wars that romantic attachment love is untenable for a Jedi comes in the form of love stories whose emotional fundamentals are flawed and unsustainable in and of themselves, regardless of the influence of the Force's power - what we _don't_ have is much reliable evidence that a _healthy_ romance, a love that would actually be capable of working and lasting between non-Jedi, would not also be capable of working and lasting between Jedi (or a Jedi and non-Jedi), and what few examples of a well-crafted attachment love we can find in Star Wars (Revan and Bastila, and, in Legends, Han and Leia as well as Luke and Mara) give every indication that it is, in fact, quite possible.
The Jedi are right to be wary of love, because when it goes wrong, it could be disastrous. But they're wrong to assume that it _must_ go wrong.
*you're arguing from is that all romantic (personal attachment) love is equal*
I don't and I didn't.
*The Jedi are right to be wary of love, because when it goes wrong, it could be disastrous. But they're wrong to assume that it must go wrong.*
Is that what the evidence shows or what you want it to be? If the Jedi are right to be wary of love, then it isn't wrong.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. I don't see how you don't and didn't. Your main cited example of evidence (and Lucas's) for why attachment love is impossible to reconcile to the Jedi is Anakin and Padme's relationship, which ended in a tragedy that its nature created. But that relationship was built upon exceptionally poor foundations which were never improved upon; at no point does the love story of Anakin and Padme as people even remotely resemble one that would not result in an unpleasant end that it itself had created, _regardless_ of either of their connection to the force. The only thing their unhealthy and unsustainable relationship proves is that such a relationship is doomed, independent of the Force. By citing this as evidence of attachment-love's being impossible to reconcile with the force, period full-stop, you (and Lucas) consequently take the position that all attachment-love is equal, unless you bring more points forward of demonstrably different (and presumably healthier/more realistically emotionally stable and sustainable) types of attachment-love and point out that they, too, are condemned within the Force. Which hasn't happened - as mentioned, Carth and Revan is not a particularly convincing romance (albeit far better than Anakin and Padme's) and is already impossible to reconcile as genuine when combined with a Dark Side Revan, and the after-the-fact single-person-perspective story of Jolee's marriage isn't reliable. You didn't make the case that Tepid And/Or Already Emotionally Unhealthy Romantic Relationships Are Doomed In the Force, you made the case that ALL romantic relationships were, so the fact that the evidence Star Wars provides of this is by and large of lesser love stories means that to take this stance, you have to be judging the theoretical good attachment-loves that would otherwise have been lasting and positive as equal to the bad.
The Jedi are right to be wary of love because they're right to be wary of all strong emotions and attachments. But as has been demonstrated many times within the Star Wars universe, that wariness becomes wrong when it becomes alienation and suppression, because it's going to inevitably explode out of the mental jar they're trying to force it into. Wariness is _caution_ not necessarily complete avoidance. We should all be wary to some degree of love, because of the power it holds over us and the pain it can and likely will cause, but that doesn't mean we should run from it - it means we should seek to do what we can to adopt healthy mental and emotional attitudes for it, and recognize in advance the paths it may seek to lead us down. The same is true of the Jedi - there's more than 1 way to be wary of the dangers of strong emotions, and the healthy, sustainable method is not and never will be their suppression.
People act like the power of the Jedi separates them completely from the power of a regular person, but the fact is that anyone in a bad frame of mind has the potential to cause destruction, pain, and death to others, and that is not an infrequent occurrence. What has the best chance of stopping someone from allowing their bad mental state from causing real damage to the world around them is how well, emotionally sturdy, and ethically aware their mind is in advance, and how reliable their emotional network of friends and family are. The fact that the Jedi can cause so much more damage in a bad mental state isn't an argument for total emotional avoidance (since that just simply doesn't work), it's an argument for why they need to accept and work through their emotions, adopt the methods of nurturing and personal growth that have the best chance to actually _work_ to prevent catastrophe. Would it be a perfect system? Certainly not. But would it be a far less destructive, more lasting approach than the decision to completely ban attachment-love, which did nothing to stop and in fact only contributed to a love that caused incalculable suffering across the galaxy during the rise and reign of the Empire? Yes.
*that relationship was built upon exceptionally poor foundations which were never improved upon*
[citation needed]. What an audacious thing to say. You might as well have said that they didn't really love each other.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. Well, the way you word that now makes me feel like you actually agree with me (or at least don't entirely disagree) and are just having fun leading me on. Which is fine, I guess, but difficult to respond to (which also might be the intent).
I suppose I'll risk appearing foolish and reply in earnest that I do think that they loved each other, but reiterate that all love is not equal, and the form that it took between them was the kind of rough, tempestuous, and short-lived infatuation with a false mental image of one another (and with the sensation of being in love by itself) that early and senseless romance sometimes takes. It's not "real" in the sense that it's not the kind of lasting and mutually positive emotional connection that we imagine first and foremost when we think of love, and it's not "real" in the sense that a lot of the person they loved was a mental construct more than the entity her/himself. But it's real in that it IS attachment-love in some form and they DID feel it for one another, and it's real in the sense that incomplete and/or short-lived love can and should still form a backbone of experience to future loves - a relationship similar to theirs, once it's ended, can still help to inform one's next romance to help it be stronger and better, making the initial love real as a component of the later, truer love to come.
i like this explation but one thing about anakin and padme i do think that love was handled well but for a different reason anakin was obsessed with padme almost he lost so much in his life that he became consumed by it theres a comic panel or panels were vader talks about and more blames palpy and himself for padme aswell as in one said panel he fight i believe a force apprition of the darkside and it grabs him from behind so vader plunges his sber though his abdomen and lives defeating the apparittion and walking away with the darkside entity asking what could he hate so much that he could do that with bassically zero hesatation to which vader replies " myself " so vader did love her but couldnt control his passion and like jolle says its after that love we see what they really become
"I think I'm done with star wars videos."
uh huh, whatever you say dot. =P
I just can't let go >_>
Excellent video!! I rarely comment on TH-cam, but I borrowed a family account just to comment! ^_^
I agree with many of your assessments of Star Wars as George Lucas conceptualizes it (and your analysis of Jolee Bindo's character flaws, and the inability of Star Wars characters to give up the Force to live a free life, is absolutely on point), and I know you may have already made up your mind about how Lucas's Star Wars sees love, but I nevertheless think that even in the movies Star Wars is more strongly in favor of personal love than one might think (at least when "controlling passions" as Bindo says).
The difference between personal and impersonal love may be at least partially semantical, but at least as far as the Ancient Greeks defined the terms by Luke showing greater preference and sacrifice towards Darth Vader than Luke does for say, Jabba the Hutt or any other person, Luke is not indulging in impersonal "agape" love, but personal "storge" love, in this case between a son and his father; the love that exists between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader is personal, and a form of attachment, because the only reason it exists in the first place is because they are family related by blood. If they were not related they wouldn't feel the same way about one another. Agape and storge are also defined and contrasted in this way in Christian writings too, such as those of C.S. Lewis.
A Jedi like Luke may feel "agape" love towards Boba Fett or other enemies, but as we see from the movies and other materials, feelings of universal compassion usually don't, indeed can't, stop Jedi from killing or at least allowing enemies to fall to their fate (in Boba's case literally into a Sarlacc Pit) when such evil people must fall for the Jedi to succeed in protecting others. Like Boba Fett, Darth Vader was a threat to Luke and his friends, and yet despite being an enemy Luke was able to hold himself back from killing him, even in service to the greater good or mercy as Yoda and Obi-Wan would have wanted (or hate and anger, like Palpatine would have wanted); the movie's heavy emphasis upon family insinuates that something more than agape is necessary to bring Darth Vader back from the Dark Side, on both his part and on Luke's part, and that is personal love: their mutual desire to love and protect one another as family. Even as Vader lies dying on the Death Star, Luke is unwilling to part with him (even though Luke's at risk of getting blown up at any minute) but Vader says not to worry because he's already been "saved" and he dies. And yet, Luke STILL carries Vader's dead body, suit and all, out of the Death Star, at the risk of his own life, just so that he can cremate it. That to me shows that, even on Luke's part, the strength of the bond between him and Vader is far beyond the unattached and impersonal.
As for why personal love seems to be an at least occasional exception to the fundamental rules of Star Wars, George Lucas comes from a Christian background, so I think it makes sense to view a positive framing of personal love, especially love of family, as a deliberate criticism of the Jedi from the mind of George Lucas, in that they are unwilling to accept the necessity of personal love, which I think is George Lucas finding fault in what he agrees is otherwise admirable goodness espoused by Eastern religions and philosophies such as Buddhism. George Lucas has been quoted many times that he sees family as central to Star Wars and that "children redeem their parents". Again, I do largely agree with your reading of how Lucas views goodness in Star Wars though.
I hope you find this comment insightful, even if you disagree! Have a great day and thank you for another thoughtful analysis video! ^_^
When you started talking about Jolee being apathetic, I already knew where it was going :D
Brilliant video, btw. Thanks. You always deliver in-depth point of view with solid arguments that people often tend to overlook
Great video. I really liked your video on SW 'cause you use not only the movies itself, but the Lucas interviews.
Whats the "Give up give up give up give up" line at the end from?
From what I’ve observed in your report, and my own take on things, I understand the facts of this matter however I believe it is an unfinished train of thought. Your two diagrams about ‘love but I won’t let go’ vs ‘love so I can let go’ are both valid and detail the two extremes of, as you put it, “the alternative”. I wonder if there is middle ground even still. To believe that love will save you, while also understanding that the Force is a gift not a curse, you can begin to find the truth of it all. Kreia understands what it means to be gray, but as I understand her thoughts, she is a darker gray, wherein Jolee is a lighter gray. This plays into the inherent extremes of it all, and what if the ultimate end of this topic is,
“Love can save you, as long as you are willing to let it go”
To love unconditionally, means that you established some sort of connection or at the very least an appreciation for the things around you to justify your compassion. For without even the simplest of justifications, you needn’t act at all.
To live selfishly, only seeking more power, is a life that isn’t not limited to Sith. The majority of the Galaxy lives in this way. The Jedi preach this to appear as the solution, whereas the Sith recite this to further their justifications, as at the end of the day, Jedi and Sith are belief systems manifested by the Force.
The truth, as this point in the discussion, appears to be,
“Love can save you, as long as you are willing to let it go when it begins to harm you.” Love is never just sunshine and rainbows, nor is hatred complete and utter chaos of negativity. If there lies middle ground between the Jedi and the Sith, there most certainly lies middle ground between Dark Gray and Light Gray.
Thank you for reading this rant. I would love to discuss this topic further. My main area of Star Wars expertise is Mandalorian.
“Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is.” ~Yoda, to Anakin after Anakin’s vision of Padmé’s death
Edit: TL:DR Jolee is right. Kreia is right. You can’t just (not) love, and you can’t get obsessive. It is more than being alive, it is feeling alive. So long as one understands that the feeling of love must fade, as all things die, one can safely conduct themselves through life.
Needs to be pinned. It's also a good philosophy for our world
Waited for it for 12 years...
In Askaban...
I’m pretty sure if some average Joe Shmuck janitor working on the Death Star volunteered to die via Papa Palpatine’s lightning rather than let Vader be killed...Vader probably wouldn’t give a damn and just let the guy die. Whether Lucas intended it or not, the personal connection Luke and Vader has as father and son deeply influences Vader’s decision and redemption
This video essay just made me realize something indirectly related to the subject.
The Jedi order was founded based around slave mentality because Force-Sensitive individuals can be extremely dangerous if they succumb to passion and begin seeking power, and the Sith were formed as a rejection of that philosophy.
At their core, are the Jedi not born of *fear* for what the Force may do in the wrong hands? Greed itself being born of the fear of not having enough, hatred born of the fear of what we do not understand, do the Jedi incidentally preach the dangers of the functional roots of their own tradition?
Yes, the Jedi preach martyrdom because they don't want Force users to have political ambitions, such as becoming emperor. It's like in Elder Scrolls, where the Greybeards always wanted the Dragonborn to become a monk, like them, but then you know, path of the emperor and all that.
@@DarkAdonisVyers In Skyrim, however, the "Way of the Voice" was originally inherent to all dragons and gifted to mankind, as Prometheus descended with fire in Greek legend. For dragons, the Way of the Voice being used as a weapon is a natural part of their life and society, and so by extension the first humanoid followers of The Way would follow. Thus the power of Dragonshouts only corrupt those who are already misguided.
The Force, in contrast, can never be used as a weapon because its corrupting power is too absolute; it is functionally impossible to just use a "safe" amount of the Dark Side. Once a Force-sensitive has a taste of the raw power The Force is capable of granting them when they give in to that urge, they will inevitably be convinced into a destructive spiral.
I don't know. There is also the fact that Mara Jade was a well written character in the Thrawn Trilogy and that Luke was able to teach her to let go of the teachings of Palpatine. Luke had a love for her by the end of the book and it made it believable that the two of them would get together. So I still think that Darth Vader still held onto some personal love with his son when he realized he was about to lose another family member like he lost Padme.
Sadly, the old EU would fuck this up when writers OUTSIDE of Timothy Zahn wrote up Mara Jade. THANKS SWORD OF THE JEDI STORYLINE FOR YOU KILLING MARA JADE, LUKE GOING ON A RAMPAGE, KILL LUMIYA IN HATE VIA DECAPITATION, TAINTING HIMSELF WITH THE DARK SIDE AND GIVING DARTH CAEDUS A FREE TICKET TO CAUSE INTERGALACTIC WAR ACROSS THE GALAXY.
The EU was written by fans before Lucas set up the rules about attachments being bad and leading to the Dark Side.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. I hate almost all of the EU but I believe that Timothy Zahn at least knew what he was doing with the original Thrawn Trilogy story. The Sword of the Jedi storyline, however, was written after the prequels came out so those writers blatantly ignored everything. Even Zahn highly criticized this story for going balls deep in the "LUKE GOES ON A RAMPAGE" mindset
>Karen Traviss
Yaaaaaawn
@@Gackt4awesome I adore the Expanded Universe precisely because it runs counter to Lucas's vision of love as the road to darkness. I'm actually starting to hate Lucas now because of how inhuman he is.
That 'The Fountainhead' quote at the end there, very interesting 😆.
This right here, is critical thinking.
Jolee says passion leads to the dark side.
It’s literally in the Sith code too:
“Peace is a lie, there’s only passion. Through passion I gain strength. (…)”
Jolee also says love and passion aren’t the same but that Jedi should be trained to control their passions. Otherwise we’re going to end up with Jedi like Anakin, *who was not trained in controlling his passion* , that will succumb to the dark side, because they’re like infants when it comes to dealing with passion.
Jolee also says love *can* save you. “Can” doesn’t mean always, but sometimes.
Anakin went to seek counsel from Yoda, but Yoda just told him to accept his loss. We all know where that went.
Had Yoda instead tried to help Anakin understand force visions and to prevent Padme’s death, Palpatine’s promise of power probably wouldn’t have held much sway over Anakin. Also having to keep his relationship a secret with no one to talk to about it, like Obi-Wan, when things began going downhill especially, probably didn’t help either.
So respectfully, your conclusion is incorrect.
> Yoda just told him to accept his loss. We all know where that went
No, Yoda told him to accept that death is a part of life. If Anakin had accepted that Padme will die and there's nothing he could have done about it, she would have died. What didn't Yoda do that wasn't helping? Also, in regards to keeping the relationship a secret, Yoda knew since Attack of the Clones and you could argue that maybe Obi-Wan knew.
So no, you're objectively wrong. The writers of Kotor 1, and by extension Jolee, were wrong to focus on passion when it is incorrect and not the problem, it is about accepting death and letting go.
@@The.TH-camr.with.no.Name. are you kidding me? That’s the exact same thing…
How can you even ask what Yoda did that didn’t help???
In your video about Kreia’s philosophy, you said it yourself “Yoda only gave some anti-life-Buddhist philosophy, but Anakin loved Padme and couldn’t let go”.
There are quite a lot of things Yoda could’ve done.
He could admit he knew of the relationship, and although not approving of it, would help regardless, by taking the visions seriously, and figuring out what they mean and where they originate from. Yoda could’ve also educated Anakin on force visions, so that he’d know visions doesn’t show a set future, but a possible one, to ease Anakin. Instead Yoda turned full politician with pretty words and no actual solution.
You completely ignored all my other points.
Again. Your conclusion is incorrect
Admitting that he knew wouldn't change the fact that Anakin had to accept that death is a natural part of life and no amount of power could stop that. The problem was not Force Visions but Anakin not accepting death and refusing to let go.
As for my Philosophy of Kreia, I was talking from the perspective of how unjust the Star Wars universe is from the point of view of life and love. Yoda indeed gave anti-life Buddhism philosophy, but it was also the only thing that could be said because, unfortunately, within the setting of Star Wars and the nature of the Force, there is no other option. There is fundamentally nothing Yoda could have done except what he told Anakin because Star Wars is fundamentally evil. Educating Force Visions wouldn't have changed anything because Anakin was only reminded that Padme could die. Being told that he knew of the relationship wouldn't have helped because Anakin needed to accept that Padme would die. It was basically an open secret and it had no factor in making Anakin fall; it was all about his refusal to accept that he couldn't prevent it with his power.
I assume you only watched my Kreia video (and the Jolee video), so I recommend also watching my video The Foundations of Star Wars that goes into even more detail on the nature of the Force. You're misunderstanding why my conclusion is incorrect because you're not seeing how attachments and love **not passions** (or the intensity of one's emotions), lead to becoming an agent of evil.
i mean look at Anakin the council told him to let go of his fears instead of offering him guidance to help her.
A really good and enjoyable analysis,
With each new Star Wars Philosophy video,
We get closer and closer to what we are all looking for.
But the true understanding of why the force need a "Good" and a Dark side is way beyond our actual mind,
and on that path we need to be ready to lose everything, and if we don't let go, Fear an Madness will tear us appart.
Its in Darkness that we forge the brightest of Light
If Starwars is about greed, seeking to use the force itself is the ultimate greed.
It is a bit like in Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood, where giving up to beeing an Alchemist is the right answer.
It is interessting that Kreia was the only one who ever really understood that and her wanting to destroy the force itself was the most interresting thing in all of Starwars for me and is the reason why she is my favorite charaktere in Starwars.
Where does the audio at the end comes from?
Jolee is a criminally underrated character.
Fight for it, but don’t covet or try to control it ♥️
Enjoy the moment
So glad to see you back
doctorate in george lucas theorems knowing the author's intent better than he would. i can tell your credential speaks for itself. you know about starwars more than anyone. hats down. i'm pogging in soyfaced astonishment at your unlimited wisdom.
14:30 APATHY IS DEATH!!
I'd consider apathy to be the key to the death of the force. At least that's my take on this given how much the dark side freaks out when you express even the slightest bit of apathy in that tomb.
Although I'm not entirely sure how that'd work? Cause according to Kriea when the exile gave up the force (only example of someone cutting themselves off from the force I know of) she did so either because she was afraid (light side exile) or because she had no choice (dark side exile) and not because of apathy towards her situation, life, friends, etc.
It'd be interesting to hear other philosopher's take on this. Was the dark side afraid that apathy creates force sensitives like Jolee that hide away and refuse to be swayed by either the light or the dark effectively becoming utterly useless to the force or was it afraid that apathy enables one to cut itself off from the force? Maybe by means of you no longer caring about even having access to the force in the first place? Where you become apathetic to using the force to help yourself or others and instead rely on yourself rather than the force?
Either way I'd love to hear an in depth take from Dot or Papito on that cave scene at some later point. I don't think the meaning behind "apathy is death, worse than death" is as simple as "hiding away in a forest doing nothing with your life for several decades of your life". I really don't think that "apathy is death" is actually Kreia's perspective on apathy as she does recommend staying out of other people's struggles least you weaken them by helping. Which from a certain point of view is basically identical to being apathetic of other people's struggles. So considering this scene is set inside a dark side tomb, I think "apathy is death" is the force's (specifically dark side's) perspective on apathy not Kreia's.
Woops this reply got way too long but your comment being hearted made me go on a bit of a rant since I really think a lot of people don't consider that this is probably not Kreia's opinion and just regurgitate it as Kreia's wisdom/philosphy when in reality I think Kreia herself is rather apathetic. She only seems to really care about getting revenge on those who wronged her and destroying the force while being pretty much indifferent towards everyone and everything else.
@@beskamir5977 I do think it's an interesting idea but I find the distinction between the "light" and "dark" sides to be irrelevant when it comes to the will of the Force itself. As the dark side is effectively the manipulation of the Force by humanity as dictated by their very nature, the will of the Force doesn't play any part in it, or at least it doesn't in a way that would be different to the light side. In which case, the Force being "afraid" of apathy still makes a lot of sense, as then it would have no way of directly affecting the material universe in any meaningful way.
However, I am unsure if apathy is truly the way, as just like the Jedi doctrine, it has to be taught. The nature of humanity is to exploit the resources around them for immediate gain and I view the Force as no different, despite the fact that it too seems to have a will of its own. As such the dark side will always exist as people will both equally strive for material and spiritual pleasures as well as the power to obtain and secure them. In this it is inevitable that suffering will exist, amplified further by the Force to reach galactic levels. And as such, it too seems inevitable for someone to oppose the oppressive source of that suffering, ultimately creating the same cycle that already exists. As such apathy may even be viewed as worse than either extreme, as the exploitation of force is inherently destructive and will arise naturally first as a result of human nature, and the harmonic coexistance will rise up to oppose it, attempting to instate itself to prevent further oppresive usage of the Force to come to pass at the expense of itself oppressing human nature. Apathy, however, both denies human nature in its abstinance from connection despite realising its value fully, and the power to prevent suffering that arises from the inevitable exploitation of the Force.
Could be I'm missing something, but despite the seeming "fear", per this interpetation, the Force experiences for the notion of apathy, it also doesn't seem likely that it will ever truly be in danger as a result of it due to how apathy is missing both the elements that makes the either extremes of force usage to exist in the first place.
@@thosebloodybadgers8499 That's a very good point, anything that needs to be learned won't kill the force. Now I'm even more curious how exactly did Kreia indented to destroy the force. Cause even with a force wound there would always be force sensitives.
@@beskamir5977 the game explained when force wound released it create echo to all people in the galaxy deafen the force
1.) that scene legitimately jump scared me.
2.) The main problem with the scene is that technically, doing nothing about that event and ignoring it is the logical choice as its a vision and not real.You are ignoring something trivial and focusing on your goal.