Care to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?

It was created by a corrupt, greedy Commiefornian "hippy", the dude knows jack and shit about stoicism, budhism, shintoism or any other religion or philosophy, his brain was probably fried with drugs.

As for the prequels... Everybody hated them until the sequels landed and by comparison yes, the prequels are not as shitty.

Now, back to the topic, Now we have a dude that wasn't even born running around as an adult...

But no, it's totally not breaking canon...

Wow. People have lost their shit over The Acolyte.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?

Because stories that make some kind of sense are better than stories that don't. And because Star Wars is about morality Good vs Evil. And because Star Wars was and kinda still is a big, popular franchise. And because we're nerds on the internet and have to dissect everything.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 12:53:07 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?

Because stories that make some kind of sense are better than stories that don't. And because Star Wars is about morality Good vs Evil. And because Star Wars was and kinda still is a big, popular franchise. And because we're nerds on the internet and have to dissect everything.

Fine, then you need to stick to the OT, if you include the prequels there's no way it makes ANY sense.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2024, 01:01:42 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 12:53:07 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?

Because stories that make some kind of sense are better than stories that don't. And because Star Wars is about morality Good vs Evil. And because Star Wars was and kinda still is a big, popular franchise. And because we're nerds on the internet and have to dissect everything.

Fine, then you need to stick to the OT, if you include the prequels there's no way it makes ANY sense.

I know. *sadface* It' just frustating.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?

It was created by a corrupt, greedy Commiefornian "hippy", the dude knows jack and shit about stoicism, budhism, shintoism or any other religion or philosophy, his brain was probably fried with drugs.

   Because ANH was a lot less toxic than a lot of other stuff at the time, and RotJ actually approaches the good with its take on repentance and mercy.

Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 07:36:25 PMAgreed, Omega. I find conservative defense of Lucas weird - when he is a Californian leftist hippy who explicitly wrote that the theme was "a large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters" and said "When I did it, they were Viet Cong". He's pushing a distorted view of Eastern religion that is at odds with Christian family values.

George Lucas' moral thinking seems to have crystallized somewhere in the mid-70s, and a 70s leftist hippy is still pretty conservative by today's standards. Plus when you're dealing in the kind of broad moral generalities that Star Wars does, there used to be a lot more common ground between left and right. Tolkien was by all accounts extremely conservative, but the hippies loved him.

More than that, I think Ratman's last two comments encapsulate it. Most of the people who are inclined to defend Lucas got attached to Star Wars on the basis of the OT and the first EU era (pre-prequel). The original films aren't flawless, but they are thematically consistent and morally creditable. A lot of that goes wrong in the prequels, but by then people are invested, and will tend to write that off as writing incompetence rather than moral corruption.

The Viet Cong thing is ironic, because what almost all of the audience saw there was the French Resistance against the Nazis. Did Lucas pull the wool over everyone's eyes, or did he bungle his own metaphor? For me, that's what makes him interesting to discuss. I stopped being a fan of Star Wars around the time of Attack of the Clones, but Lucas' bizarre combination of grand vision and incompetent execution keeps me interested in it on an academic level.

I generally avoid arguments about Christian morality, since I'm not Christian, but I'll note that Christian monasteries also took children and separated them from their families.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 21, 2024, 09:04:19 AMGeorge Lucas' moral thinking seems to have crystallized somewhere in the mid-70s, and a 70s leftist hippy is still pretty conservative by today's standards. Plus when you're dealing in the kind of broad moral generalities that Star Wars does, there used to be a lot more common ground between left and right. Tolkien was by all accounts extremely conservative, but the hippies loved him.

  Which is why I make it a policy never to judge a work by its fans.

QuoteMore than that, I think Ratman's last two comments encapsulate it. Most of the people who are inclined to defend Lucas got attached to Star Wars on the basis of the OT and the first EU era (pre-prequel). The original films aren't flawless, but they are thematically consistent and morally creditable. A lot of that goes wrong in the prequels, but by then people are invested, and will tend to write that off as writing incompetence rather than moral corruption.

  Guilty as charged. Indeed, if it weren't for Timothy Zahn and West End Games, I probably would have left Star Wars behind long before I actually did.
  My take on the Prequel Jedi is that they took the quicker, easier way of setting up rules that cut off anything that might lead to the Dark Side, resulting in a structure that was strong in most cases but brittle at key points.

QuoteI generally avoid arguments about Christian morality, since I'm not Christian, but I'll note that Christian monasteries also took children and separated them from their families.

  With parental consent, in most cases, which was the way the Jedi handled it in the post-Prequels EU. I'm given to understand The Acolyte might have changed this. And the children were free to leave when they grew up before taking solemn vows (although there might have been pressure applied, admittedly). Also, only the most strictly cloistered orders seem to have enforced the total disconnection practiced by the Jedi.

  Anyone know anything about Buddhist/Shaolin practices? Those seem to have had more of an influence on Lucas than Christian monasticism.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 21, 2024, 09:19:06 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 21, 2024, 09:04:19 AMI generally avoid arguments about Christian morality, since I'm not Christian, but I'll note that Christian monasteries also took children and separated them from their families.

  With parental consent, in most cases, which was the way the Jedi handled it in the post-Prequels EU. I'm given to understand The Acolyte might have changed this. And the children were free to leave when they grew up before taking solemn vows (although there might have been pressure applied, admittedly).

My understanding is that Christian monasteries were generally not open to children. I'm sure there are cases children being raised in monasteries (especially orphans), but the vast majority of Christian monks and nuns join as adults and take their vows. I don't know how common the practice is, but the general impression I have of monasteries is that children are at most the rare exception. I'd be curious if there was more information on this.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 21, 2024, 09:19:06 AMAnyone know anything about Buddhist/Shaolin practices? Those seem to have had more of an influence on Lucas than Christian monasticism.

Children are much more common in Buddhist monasteries than in Christian ones, though practices vary by country. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this, seeing it only through media portrayals. (I mentioned the movie Tai Chi Master earlier.) This is backed up by my reading, though.

QuoteDonald Swearer discusses additional motivations for ordaining as a teenager in his book 'The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia' (1995), p. 48:

In Thailand one of the principle reasons for being ordained is to acquire an education. Among poorer families often children cannot afford to attend school. Ordination as a novice provides for their material needs as well as a basic education. Indeed, if a boy is bright and highly motivated he may complete secondary school as a novice or monk, graduate from a monastic college, and then earn an advanced degree from a university in another country, such as India. After teaching in a monastery school for several years or serving as an administrator in a larger provincial monastery he will probably disrobe and take a responsible and respected secular job. Although such exploitation of the monastic educational structure siphons off able leadership, it has become standard practice and bears little or no social stigma.

Here's a 2021 paper about current status:

QuoteTens of thousands of children in India, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and other Asian countries are living as child Buddhist monks. Many are in temples and monasteries far from home and do not see their parents for months, even years. Some are as young as 6 years of age. The aim of this article is to engage scholars, practitioners, child rights advocates, and others in a conversation around the rights and vulnerabilities of child Buddhist monks and children susceptible to being entrusted to monasteries to live as child monks.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23493003211012108

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 21, 2024, 09:04:19 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 07:36:25 PMAgreed, Omega. I find conservative defense of Lucas weird - when he is a Californian leftist hippy who explicitly wrote that the theme was "a large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters" and said "When I did it, they were Viet Cong". He's pushing a distorted view of Eastern religion that is at odds with Christian family values.

George Lucas' moral thinking seems to have crystallized somewhere in the mid-70s, and a 70s leftist hippy is still pretty conservative by today's standards. Plus when you're dealing in the kind of broad moral generalities that Star Wars does, there used to be a lot more common ground between left and right. Tolkien was by all accounts extremely conservative, but the hippies loved him.

More than that, I think Ratman's last two comments encapsulate it. Most of the people who are inclined to defend Lucas got attached to Star Wars on the basis of the OT and the first EU era (pre-prequel). The original films aren't flawless, but they are thematically consistent and morally creditable. A lot of that goes wrong in the prequels, but by then people are invested, and will tend to write that off as writing incompetence rather than moral corruption.

Do you think that Lucas intended the Jedi to be as cruel and awful as some of the criticisms suggest?

QuoteThe Viet Cong thing is ironic, because what almost all of the audience saw there was the French Resistance against the Nazis. Did Lucas pull the wool over everyone's eyes, or did he bungle his own metaphor? For me, that's what makes him interesting to discuss. I stopped being a fan of Star Wars around the time of Attack of the Clones, but Lucas' bizarre combination of grand vision and incompetent execution keeps me interested in it on an academic level.

The Viet Cong thing is funny because the Viet Cong didn't win militarily. They won a PR war with the American civilians.

edit double

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 04:44:35 PMDo you think that Lucas intended the Jedi to be as cruel and awful as some of the criticisms suggest?

Not at all. I would guess that Lucas thinks being recruited into the Jedi Temple is one of the best things that can happen to a kid, so he wouldn't see a problem with it. As far as the Anakin's mom thing goes, like I said, I think he expected the audience not to question it. He kind of wrote himself into a corner, too, because he wants Anakin's fall to be owed to his overattachment, but he also wants it to be sympathetic to the audience, and give him a reason to blame the Jedi for it. Just having him be overly possessive of Padme would have made him way too unlikeable. Just having him be afraid of her dying in ROTS would have been way too abrupt when he wanted the fall to be more gradual, and he couldn't plausibly blame the Jedi for it. He still bungled it, and he probably should have gone with another plot entirely, but that's what he went for so that's what we got.

EDIT:

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 04:44:35 PMThe Viet Cong thing is funny because the Viet Cong didn't win militarily. They won a PR war with the American civilians

Also, America at its worst isn't a ready analogue for the Galactic Empire.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 20, 2024, 08:26:52 PM

Quote from: Omega on June 20, 2024, 06:12:22 PMI'm trying not to dwell on obscure points or fan theories. Anakin being separated from his mother and not allowed to help or visit her because of Jedi rules was at the center of the prequel movies.

Was it because the Jedi forbade it? Was it because the Republic didn't have any serious legal juristiction over Tatooine? Was it because a Jedi running around freeing slaves would have been seen as favoritism? No matter how "good" the results would be. Should the Jedi run around and fix all the family problems of it's membership? Why didn't Padme shell out a few credits and buy Shmi from Watto? As a queen and then senator, I imagine she got a decent paycheck, and her family seemed to be pretty upper class wealthy. (Lake Retreat and all)

um... I did not say that? Not sure who you quoted but wasnt me.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 04:44:35 PMDo you think that Lucas intended the Jedi to be as cruel and awful as some of the criticisms suggest?

I do not think Lucas knows what the fuck he is doing. And the prequels may have had some Kennedy meddling if she had any hand in them. But odds are its all Lucas.

The vibe, intentional or not, is that the Jedi have lost touch with the force. Especially Yoda. The only person who knew what the hell to do was Qui-Gon and he gets offed.

Quote from: Omega on June 22, 2024, 01:05:13 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 20, 2024, 08:26:52 PM

Quote from: Omega on June 20, 2024, 06:12:22 PMI'm trying not to dwell on obscure points or fan theories. Anakin being separated from his mother and not allowed to help or visit her because of Jedi rules was at the center of the prequel movies.

Was it because the Jedi forbade it? Was it because the Republic didn't have any serious legal juristiction over Tatooine? Was it because a Jedi running around freeing slaves would have been seen as favoritism? No matter how "good" the results would be. Should the Jedi run around and fix all the family problems of it's membership? Why didn't Padme shell out a few credits and buy Shmi from Watto? As a queen and then senator, I imagine she got a decent paycheck, and her family seemed to be pretty upper class wealthy. (Lake Retreat and all)

um... I did not say that? Not sure who you quoted but wasnt me.

My bad. That was a jhkim quote. Editing nested quotes gets tricky.