An Interesting read

What are your thoughts? What is your interpretation?

We all thought the Sith were pure evil but what if we were wrong?

Well, at the end of the first paragraph of the argument, there is this:
Anakin Skywalker: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.
Chancellor Palpatine: And the Jedi don't?

Palpatines rhetorical question (without answer, floating in the air) "...and the Jedi don't?" suggests that he is right.... but he is lying!


Here is the first part of the Jedi Creed


I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;

Where there is hatred I shall bring love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

I am a Jedi.

Doesn't seem too selfish to me....

The creed is not from the fiction Tamas, so it's not really relevant to the discussion unfortunately.

It's interesting to consider, but...

The main arguments used don't really fit with our ideas here (although a few have merit - the Jedi carrying our an illegal arrest on Palpatine for instance, and letting the Republic reach a point where Palpatine was able to assume power in the first place)...

The criticisms of the Jedi Code, for example, are based in a completely different interpretation of it to mine or any of the IP responses on the Code that I've ever seen in people's journals. I suspect that the author would benefit from taking a look at the 'Yet' version that we often use here, because he's neglected to look past the initial appearance of absolutes that the standard version can seem to present at first glance. I think, fundamentally, because the author appears not to believe in the Force he has not taken into consideration the way in which it influences the Jedi, or the true nature of duality, and thus his argument is very flawed.

The conclusion...

There's nothing innate to the Sith that makes them evil. Indeed, the values they hold are all about self-empowerment to bring about change and throw off oppression in all its forms. The Jedi, by contrast, are about stagnancy and suppression of the self.

...is reliant on the supposition that the self exists. I disagree with it - the Sith rely on the illusion of Ego whereas the Jedi see through it and reject it - rather than suppressing their true nature the Jedi embrace it whilst the Sith do the opposite. The Jedi in the movies don't actually talk about the illusion of the individual Ego and the oneness of all things in the way that we do here, but their interpretation/understanding of the Force implies similar philosophies on those fronts.

Although, that being said, I do agree with the first sentence of that conclusion. It is the actions (choices) of the individual Sith in the movies that makes them, for want of a better word, evil - not their identification as Sith.

I do agree with V-Tog.
The final statement in which the author assumes that Jedi work for the suppresion of the self is clearly incorrect. There is a huge difference between seeing that the "Ego" is a big lie which tries to dominate ourselves and to completely avoid self-thinking or spontaneity.

Evenmore, the author is using the duality in the Force (light/dark) in which I personally do not believe. Ego's are light or dark (usually selfish by definition) but not the Force. In my opinion his lack of awareness about the real Jedi path is what makes him to conclude in that way.

The text is interesting, true, but that's only that.

The author doesn't consider the interpretations of the Jedi Code, not only ours, but even in the Jedi Path book, they have their "official" interpretation of each tenet.

Also, he says the Republic was under the stewardship of the Jedi. It was not. The Jedi Order doesn't mettle in politics, other than trying to bring a peaceful solution for things.

He wanted the Republic to "unleash unmitigated fury against such a blatant act". This is not the Jedi way, and it's also not the Republic's way. I see the Jedi Order as the UN, they are there to protect peace and to try to solve conflicts in the most peaceful way possible. To "unleash unmitigated fury against" the blockade, you are assuming the conflict cannot be solved by conversation and diplomacy, and thus you are waging war without trying Peace first.

I can relate that to the situation we are having in Sao Paulo, where the governor decided to close some schools, and students have occupied those schools to impede their closure. What the author is asking is that the government just send the police there to spank everyone because of that. That's not how you solve conflict. Yes, if the use of force (not Force) is necessary, than that's ok to use it, after all diplomatic way are over, but waging war before trying to solve things in a diplomatic way is not only completely out of the Jedi way, but it's also the way dictators do.

He is also considering the Sith and the Jedi as two different religious groups. They can be seem as that in a way, but the distinction is more than that. Also, when he mentions Windu's arresting of Emperor Palpatine, the Jedi Council does have the authority to do something like that. And he is not considering the fact that the word of a Jedi Knight is worth as much as the word of a Knight in Medieval Europe or that of a samurai in feudal Japan. A Jedi's word is worth tens of citizens words, for the sole fact that they are sworn to never lie.

"There's nothing innate to the Sith that makes them evil."

BS. They orchestrated their way into conflict, they were the ones involved in a coup to rise into power by means of war and fear. Heck, they destroyed a planet just for the sake of proving they were strong enough to do that. And they did that after promising they would spare the planet if Leia told them the truth.

And to top it all, saying the Jedi is all about suppression of the self is to say Buddhists are about suppressing the self. One couldn't be further from the truth. Controlling your self and not giving way to your animalistic instincts is what the Jedi are all about.

First off, the author is a woman, which everyone making mention of seems to have easily overlooked.

Second the context from which she speaks is from a purely fictional point of view has little to no relevance to our path as she was not including the Force community in her article and to try to compare the two (an article based solely on assessing the morale highground on characters within a purely fictional work and comparing it to the dynamics within the Jedi community) is nonsensical and pointless.

It was a rather fun read but once you try to compare the two you suck the fun out of it...

Edan wrote: The creed is not from the fiction Tamas, so it's not really relevant to the discussion unfortunately.

As you see, I'm a rookie here, Edan. Where is the creed from?

Tamas wrote:

Edan wrote: The creed is not from the fiction Tamas, so it's not really relevant to the discussion unfortunately.

As you see, I'm a rookie here, Edan. Where is the creed from?

Before you answer....

The creed is "adopted from the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, author unknown, 1915." ... the doctrine says.

Someone (anyone?!) used the term "Jedi" in 1915?!?
Source, please!!!!
I thought it was formed by George Lucas around 1977!

Tamas wrote:

Tamas wrote:

Edan wrote: The creed is not from the fiction Tamas, so it's not really relevant to the discussion unfortunately.

As you see, I'm a rookie here, Edan. Where is the creed from?

Before you answer....

The creed is "adopted from the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, author unknown, 1915." ... the doctrine says.

Someone (anyone?!) used the term "Jedi" in 1915?!?
Source, please!!!!
I thought it was formed by George Lucas around 1977!

The creed was adapted for the Temple, if you have a look at the original the word Jedi is not included.