Sith

  • Luthien
  • Luthien's Avatar
  • Guest
13 Apr 2017 21:46 #280770 by Luthien
Replied by Luthien on topic Sith
Mmm, I wouldn't say so, but maybe. It might help. ƪ(‾ε‾“)ʃ

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Arisaig
  • Arisaig's Avatar
  • Guest
13 Apr 2017 23:27 #280777 by Arisaig
Replied by Arisaig on topic Sith

ZealotX wrote: I didn't say false. You did. I just said she had an Adam's apple. I didn't say what she should or shouldn't identify as.

What she says or does is her own choice. What YOU say or do is yours.


I agree, you did not say false, but you're using it as an example of someone pretending to be something they are not. So yeah, sorta saying its false.

Listen, I feel like you could take this whole Jedi thing all the way if you want. I do have faith in you. Do your training, read our doctrine. May the Force be with you.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
14 Apr 2017 12:48 #280804 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Sith

Luthien wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Luthien wrote: Not what I was referring to, at all. I was talking about denom's that look at other denom's and say that they aren't really Christian, according to their own way of belief. That's sanctimony. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.


That's interesting. So if you think I'm a troll and I say I'm not, then what? Do you have the right to call me a troll if that is your opinion?


Of course I have the right to do so, but that doesn't necessarily make me correct.


Then, as long as I state, "this is my opinion", don't I also have the right to express a different view of the Sith that others might disagree with? Like you said, it doesn't necessarily make me correct but that is my opinion. Is that not so?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
14 Apr 2017 13:09 #280806 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Sith

Arisaig wrote:

ZealotX wrote: I didn't say false. You did. I just said she had an Adam's apple. I didn't say what she should or shouldn't identify as.

What she says or does is her own choice. What YOU say or do is yours.


I agree, you did not say false, but you're using it as an example of someone pretending to be something they are not. So yeah, sorta saying its false.

Listen, I feel like you could take this whole Jedi thing all the way if you want. I do have faith in you. Do your training, read our doctrine. May the Force be with you.


I didn't say they were pretending either. The way I told the example I left the audience to focus on either the girl or the guy. I identified her as a girl and never said she did anything wrong. The example was about the difference between the right of that person to identify as female vs the right of the person they're interacting with to engage or not engage in anything sexual after seeing that this person has an Adam's apple which mean they are or were anatomically male. I fully accept that person's right to call themselves whatever they want. However, the right to agree or disagree is with the rest of us. That is the freedom we all have, to be what we want to be, to think what we want to think.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm sorry if people feel strongly that I'm wrong. They are more than welcome to debate me and try to change my mind if they so choose. I welcome everyone's insights and opinions. I simply don't have to agree. Neither do you. Essentially the rights and freedoms one person has are the same rights and freedoms the rest of us have. At some point someone said "I'm going to redefine the Sith". Okay. There are many people who agreed with that person. I agree that there are many people who agreed with that person, who choose to call themselves Sith. But I disagree with the person who redefined it. Keep in mind that once upon a time there was a person who created the idea of race that divided human beings into different colors. Because of that we've fought and killed each other; enslaved each other. Definitions and labels can have adverse effects. It is your right to agree. It's my right to disagree. And if people choose to identify based on their agreement with the person who redefined the Sith, then that's what they are... to them and to you if you agree. But by extension they cannot be true Sith to me because I don't agree with the redefinition.

But what I have chosen to do on this site is a compromise. Because, as someone seeking to fully embrace Jediism there's no way I'm not going to make many references to the Sith*. So to avoid confusion, I'm going to put an asterisk after Sith when I'm talking about the SW canon Sith. And to refer to those on this site who use this name I will type it as sith with a lowercase "s". This is about as fair as I can get on this issue. I hope you and others understand.

May the force be with you.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
14 Apr 2017 14:44 #280808 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Sith

MadHatter wrote: Their philosophy? You mean one that has changed time and again throughout the EU? One that has become radically different from the time of pure blood sith to the dark brotherhood to the era of Bane to the era and philosophy if Sidious? Yet somehow despite all the change it can't evolve to fit the real world like the code/philosophy f the Jedi did?
This short clip dictates how drastically the ideals of the Sith changed from the original Sith empire to the death of Sidious.


No disrespect, but where in the video did he address a change in core philosophy? The only part of the timeline I'm unfamiliar with (because I stopped playing SWTOR) is that new empire that Bioware added. But anything Bioware has ever added has never changed the core concepts of Jedi and Sith*. They've always expounded upon.

From what I know, throughout all the generations of the Sith* the understanding of their use of the dark side has been the same. However, they evolved along a particular path. I will try to explain clearly what I mean but I need you to bear with me as I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative. This is just for the sake of sharing knowledge. And just as a reminder, everything I say is an expression of my own opinion based on my knowledge of the canon from before the Old Republic up until Kylo Ren.

Old school Sith* were members of the Sith species. This is where Sith* Sorcery originated. They were able to draw upon the force to different degrees. And the force (similar to Jet Li's move "The One") seemed to be divided among its users. The dark side was something that they perpetually researched and sought understanding of. The force is similar to the "holy spirit" in the Christian tradition. You could imagine that the spirit of God and the spirit of the devil came from the same fundamental source. Christians want to be "filled" with the holy spirit while being afraid of demonic possession. In a way, for dark side users, this was the goal. And this is also based upon many religious systems, including voodoo and voodun. This idea of spiritual energy giving you power is an old human tradition and adherents had different gods with different personalities so they would call upon a particular one to get the type of power they needed (healing vs attack for instance).

By the same token the dark side user is opening him or herself up to this power that has a more "dark, destructive," personality type. So the more you emulate that personality type the more you are compatible with that spirit/energy. Does this make sense so far?

This energy can be used to strengthen your ability in combat or it could be used in Sith* magic or Sith* rituals. The Sith philosophy is what guides the evolution of the Sith*. They didn't just decide to do things differently during one time or another. It was an evolutionary process in order to become more powerful. In the beginning this took the form of rivalry and jockeying for position within a large mass. But because of the Sith* fundamental principle this ALWAYS inevitably ended in destruction. Why? Because destruction is part of the Sith* philosophy as a means of improvement. They were constantly rebuilding with stronger leaders than the last. The masses survived based on following the strongest leader. Even after the rule of two this remained true.

But what is true UNIVERSALLY is that power has a tendency to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It doesn't matter what universe you're in or what BCE or BBY... it's the same. I could argue that the main enemy of the Jedi was NEVER the Sith* but the rather the corrupting influence of power that led to the fall of Jedi to become Sith*. And how did their path lead to them to become Sith*? It is because the Sith evolutionary path is intertwined in corruption. It IS corruption. It is the dark side acting through the user. Now... is there REALLY a light and dark side? No. These sides come from us. Power is power. But power in the hands of a Jedi is different from power in the hands of a dark Jedi or a Sith*.

Bane created the Rule of Two... one to possess the power and the other to crave it. This was an evolution of the same thinking because it is inherently selfish. Bane didn't care about the other Sith*. The Sith* always used each other as a means to an end. By killing them Bane was able to concentrate that power into a single vessel. This is not a different philosophy. This was a fulfillment of Sith* philosophy. He only did it based on his understanding of Sith* philosophy. He wasn't creating a new philosophy or redefining what was already done. Sith* Lords leave holocrons so that future Sith* can learn from them. There is a tradition of understanding how each Darth Lord understood and manipulated the dark side.

What the video dealt with was the question of how there were shifts in how powerful the Sith were. That's true. Their understanding of how to use the dark side evolved. It is definitely more effective to use hidden political means than brute strength. Brute strength might take down 50 people but political power controls armies without even lifting a finger. It is therefore a more efficient use of the force as a means to seek power. And when Bane first started out was he fully committed to the Dark Side? No. That is part of the Sith* journey... their path. When you see Rey closing her eyes she is surrendering to the force; therefore using it for strength. Kylo Ren was still battling internal conflict that kept him from doing the same thing. This didn't make Kylo some new form of Sith*. It just made him weak in comparison to other Sith*. But the path itself.... doesn't change. The Sith work themselves up to full surrender to the Dark Side. Anakin had to kill younglings because as a Jedi he wanted to be selfless and to save others. He had to kill that part of himself.

Every Sith* "dies" or sacrifices themselves in order to evolve into something else. It's the same for Christians and Jedi. But the differences is what part of ourselves we're trying to sacrifice. The Jedi try to sacrifice selfishness; therefore attachments that could temptations towards the dark side. Sith* sacrifices their humanity... their morality... to keep from the temptation towards the light. The light is not a source of power to them. It's a source of weakness. Therefore, if you could make a Sith* like Vader, feel compassion for a son, you could defeat him even though (otherwise) he was more powerful than you.

Now... there was a 3rd path created by Bioware which most fans want to be accepted in the canon. One word. REVAN. If you play SWTOR and talk to the members of the cult of Revan they will point out that he was FULLY Jedi (and thus powerful in the light) and then FULLY Sith. So it wasn't the same as a Gray Jedi or someone trying to be in the middle on the moral scale. But again... this is not a Sith* path. This is the path of REVAN. So if a person wishes to embrace that path they would be Revanites.

It is important to me that the Sith path be purely understood because it deals with fundamental principles of real life good and evil and how humans get corrupted in the process of thinking they're doing "good". It shows how good and evil are relative concepts and allows us to consider the future product of our actions before we become the next Hitler or Assad or Putin or Kim Jong-un. None of these dudes think they're the bad guy. But to the rest of the world what they're doing isn't right. Right now Trump is actively killing people with the power he has obtained from the American people. This guy is a Sith* if I've ever saw one. This doesn't mean everything he does is bad for everyone. No, it's going to be good for some and terrible for others. Trying to define "sith" as a force for good is like Saying Trump is good. Trump is like everyone else; good and evil. He's just mainly good for himself and if that helps you in some way then you might like it. But that doesn't mean selling your internet privacy, cheating students, dismantling EPA regulations, banning Muslims, separating families through deportation, and threatening the life saving healthcare many people rely on, are all good. All it does is shift hurt onto someone else. And sure... if you're a student, don't care about the lives of future generations, not a Muslim, etc. Trump might be your hero. But he's still a vagina-grabbing a-hole who is the poster child for corruption. He is powerful because he embraces the dark side and was willing to lie and cheat his way to the top. The Jedi and Sith are fictional concepts but I swear they are both true to life and that's why, at least in my own mind, their definitions must be preserved.

May the force be with you.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Luthien
  • Luthien's Avatar
  • Guest
14 Apr 2017 15:56 #280814 by Luthien
Replied by Luthien on topic Sith

ZealotX wrote:

Luthien wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Luthien wrote: Not what I was referring to, at all. I was talking about denom's that look at other denom's and say that they aren't really Christian, according to their own way of belief. That's sanctimony. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.


That's interesting. So if you think I'm a troll and I say I'm not, then what? Do you have the right to call me a troll if that is your opinion?


Of course I have the right to do so, but that doesn't necessarily make me correct.


Then, as long as I state, "this is my opinion", don't I also have the right to express a different view of the Sith that others might disagree with? Like you said, it doesn't necessarily make me correct but that is my opinion. Is that not so?


Do you, boo boo. If it somehow satisfies some part of you to argue about sith philosophy and what makes one a sith, then who am I to stop you. I have no authority over you. Though, you do make sweeping statements about people, which seems antithetical to the doctrine that is promoted here, and is rather poor form. But, that's all I'm going to say about it. I'm over it. (⌐■_■)ノ

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
14 Apr 2017 17:59 #280822 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Sith

Luthien wrote: Do you, boo boo. If it somehow satisfies some part of you to argue about sith philosophy and what makes one a sith, then who am I to stop you. I have no authority over you. Though, you do make sweeping statements about people, which seems antithetical to the doctrine that is promoted here, and is rather poor form. But, that's all I'm going to say about it. I'm over it. (⌐■_■)ノ


Actually, I stated an opinion that several people argued against. I then responded to them with an explanation of why my opinion is what it is. People can call themselves whatever they like. For the sake of clarity I never said they couldn't. I have no authority over them, nor do I want it. We each have authority over ourselves and we each have the right to our own thoughts and opinions. I never said they were bad people. I never said anything negative about them. I don't know them well enough (especially not as a group) to say such things. I simply disagree with their definition of "Sith" and I've explained how Sith* (Sith* = SW Sith) philosophy causes harm and is immoral. I spoke of how Sith* are confused and in that confusion the "good" they seek to do for themselves can lead to "evil" or calamitous outcomes. Moreover, I preemptively apologized to an admin if they thought I had overstepped and told them that if they ever wanted me to fall back I would.

Jedi understand their limitations. We recognise, and take responsibility, for our failures and develop a level of modesty about them. We respect the right for others to disagree and understand that they themselves are not perfect.

A Jedi is unencumbered by bias or personal interest. Justice is a double-edged sword, one that protects the weak, yet also passes judgements according to a set of values. A Jedi tolerates that which is not Jedi and does not pass judgement on that which causes no harm for it is just.

A Jedi knows how contradicting beliefs of what is right and wrong can lead to devastating crimes and conflicts. A Jedi takes a step away from the subjectivity of opinion in favour of the peace of objectivity. A Jedi does not force their values upon others.

A Jedi knows the conflicting nature of the Force but they also know its peace and serenity. A Jedi never blindly enters conflict and always does so for the greater good.

May the force be with you.
The following user(s) said Thank You: JLSpinner

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
14 Apr 2017 18:20 #280828 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Sith

ZealotX wrote: Bane created the Rule of Two... one to possess the power and the other to crave it. This was an evolution of the same thinking because it is inherently selfish. Bane didn't care about the other Sith*. The Sith* always used each other as a means to an end. By killing them Bane was able to concentrate that power into a single vessel. This is not a different philosophy. This was a fulfillment of Sith* philosophy. He only did it based on his understanding of Sith* philosophy. He wasn't creating a new philosophy or redefining what was already done. Sith* Lords leave holocrons so that future Sith* can learn from them. There is a tradition of understanding how each Darth Lord understood and manipulated the dark side.


My apologies. I forgot something important.

The Sith'ari - starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sith%27ari
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


Bane's Rule of Two could be seen as a shift in tactics but also as a fulfillment of the Sith* philosophy. He destroyed the Sith* in order to make the Sith* more powerful. That didn't mean he was changing anything. By their philosophy this made him "perfect".
The following user(s) said Thank You: JLSpinner

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZero