posted
Well, I already had the last two posts on "The Secret" thread, so I decided not to bump it. But I was thinking about what someone said about The Secret giving them bigger Hoo hoos and that line from Star Wars popped into my head:
quote:Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fort...
A professor I recently was talking to about the problem of self-righteousness and evil (wherein evil is the attitude of self as the arbitrator of good) explained to me that Kant posited there was no such thing as absolute evil, wherein a person says "I Am Evil! Muwhahahaha!" and untertakes to conform all their behavior to principles of Evil. I forget if I raised the dark side of the force at that time.
So the thing about the Secret is that it's practitioners probably think the dark side of the power of the Universe is when people attract negative events into their lives. But the Dark side of the Force as practiced by the Sith is to acquire gain and exercise dominion over others.
As is often being pointed out, the various Biblical religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) do not guarantee the avoidance of this problem. But I think such an error only occurs by an individual embracing some deception or other, usually about the humanity of others.
So do the Sith deep down believe in unadulterated evil, or do they, as Anakin seemed to be saying in Episode II, feel people would be happier if they were prevented from stupidity? Lucas was almost on to something there, but then chose to go with his drive to cheat death as the motive for "turning".
What about the Emporer? Did he really mean to be evil, or was it about imposing order on the Universe? Making things go his way?
(edit: I softened my mockery of The Secret and listed Judaism and Christianity as Biblical religions)
posted
I can't think of a good reason (other than insanity) why a person would be evil just for evil's sake. It seems that people who we consider evil are either following a set of values which we do not believe to be true, or worse, following a set of values which devalues our lives.
In a lot of cases, evil is simply our way of looking at the other team.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But...I don't believe everyone with a different set of values from mine=automatically is evil. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been a while since I've seen any of the Star Wars movies, so I'll refrain from using that specific terminology to paint my picture.
My reply to the question(s) you stated in your last line would have to be that the Emperor, as any megalomaniac, did not believe his plans to be pure evil. He was trying to impose his own sense of order upon the people, not unlike the warlord in 'Hero'. That leader also thought it would be best for the people if they were all to be under his rule, he would then be able to bring justice to everyone. However, in going about gaining the land, it became frighteningly easy to overlook the damage he did to the people he intended to help. When the assassin has made clear to him that ultimately his plan will not succeed, he decides to stop at a certain point and then focuses on building a better future for his people.
People have a tendency to impose their own sense of order upon nature, because they cannot see (or do not wish to see) the natural order that already exists. The best way to go about it would be to spend your life getting a clearer perception of this natural order. In this respect the people of the Middle Ages were much more advanced than most of us are now. For as Terry Jones made clear in his enlightening show, most people of that time were curious about every new discovery that science made, it was their way of getting to know more about God. And what is God if not some personification of this existing universal order?
Sadly, our modern times, with its many helpful gadgets that make everyday life easier, have IMO also produced a kind of laziness in humans. Everybody is looking for easy answers, it seems. 'The Secret' is just another attempt to share this wisdom with the masses. I do not think it is a nonsensical book that has no meaning, but if one thinks everything will be clear after reading it, than disappointment will most likely be the outcome. The teachings within the book aren't new, they're just poured into a new form. Supposedly this book will explain why people like Da Vinci or Galileo were such brilliant men. The answer to that is rather simple; they were curious. Curious as to how things work, eager to learn. Not curious in the sense of wanting to pry into other people's private affairs.
I'm not saying that everything is predestined, for I definitely believe that people have a free will. Just look at all the bad decisions they keep making (myself included). Every person is the master of his own destiny. Just don't force your way against the natural order of things. Because as we all know, every action has an equal reaction, so if you forcibly create your own utopia, then at some point nature will lash back at you.
Lastly, I want make it very clear that I don't claim to know everything. In fact I know precious little, but on my better days I can piece all the bits of knowledge I do possess into one grand weave of truth. On those days I can see that every form of dissention among humans is caused solely by people's inability to see the truth. War, famine and general unhappiness aren't meant to be, a conclusion I share with Dagny Taggart (and therefor Ms.Rand). My personal goal is to be able to feel that way every day. For even though I know that the situation on this Earth of ours isn't going to change overnight, we must keep working towards it, which means that we need to believe that such a future is possible.
My apologies if this comes across a bit preachy, but this has been one of my better days. Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not everyone with a different set of values is evil, but everyone who is evil has a different set of values.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you read my post, Puffy. I think I implied that no set of values guarantees one will not be evil.
I think where I was going to go next is whether the Emporer, in embracing something clearly labeled "The Dark Side," doesn't do what I do when I decide that I don't really need to obey the speed limit. I know I'm being unlawful, but I decide for whatever reason that I will. Now my contention is that I basically do it because I want to, and all the justifications like everyone else is doing it and other people will be safer if I do, and I'll get fired if I'm chronically tardy, are baloney.
The thing about speeding that makes it particularly salient to the matter of evil is that everyone has a different maximum speed depending on their vehicle, the road, and any impairment they might be under due to substances or sleep deprivation (and let's not forget the probability of getting caught, which I think is my husband's controlling parameter). But I don't think we really take these into account. I know for me, I get it in my head that I can go seventy, and I'm not actually being responsive to my individual faculties. And I hesitate to bring up the issue of fuel efficiency. Because I'm not really ready to give up speeding. I wish I could live in a hut and never have to deal with the modern world. Oh well. It's a tangled web, yadda yadda. My point is, about the maximum speed, we adopt a private law in place of the actual law. We are still governed by a law, but it's a false law.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
umm the war lord in Hero did no such thing, he is actually the King of Qin who goes on to Unify China under his rule forming China's first Imperial Dynasty until it was overthrown by the Han Dynasty.
IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone see the History Channel special on Star Wars? I have a new respect for the second trilogy after watching it.
I think Darth Vader and the Emperor had very, very different motivations for becoming what they became. I've never really seen any indepth discussion on the Emperor pre-Senator Palpatine, but it appears to me like he, and his master before him, orchestrated everything from the beginning of Episode I to the end of the Clone War to result in his power. From the creation of the Clone Army under Master Sipha Dias, to the Trade Federation Alliance, to the usurpation of power, etc, he was playing a deep, long term game on his road to power. But Palpatine had some serious issues to begin with, he hated non-humans and didn't have a lot of respect for women (now I'm drawing on EU stuff) except as sex objects and tools of assasination. I think from his personal ideologies you could describe him as evil, but he isn't evil for the sake of evil. He was a bad man in search of power because he wanted to rule the galaxy, when he got to rule the galaxy, his bad man ideologies were pressed upon the galaxy, but I think that is different than describing him as evil for the sake of evil.
Vader on the other hand had more complex personal issues. He really was trained as a Jedi far too late, he didn't have the emotional maturity to handle it. He was a teenager, and let's face it, teens are whiny complainers, not give whiny complainer teens with delusions of grandeur semi-ultimate power and a girlfriend and now you've got a real powder keg. The Emperor saw his issues and easily manipulated him. Anakin wanted to be the best, he wanted to protect Padme, and he felt that becoming all powerful was the only way to do that. He was just a messed up kid with a ton of powers, and in the end he ended up destroying all the things he initially worshipped, which I think killed a big part of his soul. Luke could have been the same way, except he turned the Emperor down where his father said yes, to the power offered to him, and Luke was a potential pawn of Yoda/Obi-Wan's and Vader/Emperor's. He found a third way out of the options the two sides presented to him.
Ya'll might not respect the movies, but give the story itself some credit, it's pretty friggin sweet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'd say that for me, evil is not in behavior, but in how one regards one's behavior. All are fallen, all are lost. But it comes down to whether we deal with the fall truthfully or cover it over with fig leaves. When we begin to believe our own lies, we forget what the truth was.
It's just weird how Darth Vader, knowing that there is an all powerful Force in the Universe, would choose the wrong side of it. though I suppose that the Jedi, in rejecting personal attachments, are... uh, well, they rejected Love as most people would understand it from the "good" side of the Force. I guess in this sense, it's possible Anakin was following what for him was a higher cause, one that most people in the audience of this film would recognize as such.
Something "The Secret" recommends (according to the Slate review) is to cut off relationships with others who are not committed to being positive, and people who have attracted misfortunes of various kinds into their lives.
I still think the emporer is represented as being purely evil for evil's sake. I think it is part of the weakness of the prequels. Though he does have this connection with the series of masters and apprentices, Dooko, Jin, Kenobi, and Skywalker. I'm not saying we need more prequels. Also, I don't remember seeing any evidence of the Emporer seeing women as sex objects. Maybe the Emporer was abandoned by his father. Then why would he kill his Sith Master, that taught him the power over life and death? 'Cuz he's evil, I know.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see more evidence of the Emperor's tastes in the EU, none at all in the movies.
But I disagree that he is evil for evil's sake in the movies. Most, well, ALL, I'd daresay, of the world's greatest villains, were not evil for the sake of being evil, they had ulterior motives that we attached evilness to because we don't like their motives or results. The Emperor is no different. He's essentially Hitler writ large, which I think still makes him evil, but not for the SAKE of being evil, and I think the prequels bear that out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Having seen the movie only once I might be mistaken, but I thought that at the start of the tale it was still debatable whether the warlord would draw the line (or wall ) where he did. The concern was that he would go on acquiring more lands so that eventually he could bring peace and order to everyone in the known lands, disregarding the cost of his conquests. In that scenario, even though he would be acting on a noble ideal, he would have spent his whole life waging war, and wouldn't have had the time to be the wise ruler he wanted to be. Otherwise I totally agree with your post.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Anakin thought he was chosing the 'wrong' side of the all-powerful force of the universe. He, and the Sith in general, felt they were choosing the TRUE nature of the force, the one that was NOT devoid of emotion and attachment. You can see this in the way Palpatine tempts Anakin about the true nature of the force, which he then echoes to his son in Empire. The latest novelizations (Legacy of the Force) refer to the 'dark' side as simply the unleashed force.
I think that there are different things we define as evil. The evil that accepts and even perpetrates violence, in the hopes of achieving a goal (however stupid or foolish or myopic). And the evil that takes pleasure in the pain and crushing of others, or at least takes their pleasure IN SPITE of said pain of others. And these are not mutually exclusive, but rather a continuum.
As such, then I would place Vader and the Emperor, even, on the 'end justifies the means' end of the spectrum. It seems clear, even without all the retconning in the EU, that the Rmperor and Vader honestly believed their New Order and the peace they brought was worth breaking a few eggs. Even having manufactured the entire Clone war, the Republic was already falling and was grinding to a halt, though it would take centuries for that to show. A Sith like Palpatine, and especially Anakin, could believe that the initial cost of imposing order on the galaxy was worth it, in order to avoid the rampant barbarism that would come at the fall. There's some Asimov in there.
That is not to say that Palpy, especially (since we didn't see this in Vader) did not also enjoy the crushing of his enemies, particularly the Jedi. At best, it was only a partial motivation, moving him on the spectrum a little further toward the evil that takes delight in others' suffering.
I believe that it is the latter, those who enjoy the pain of others and their abject fear- who can enjoy the screams and tortures- or at least accept the pain necessary by products of their receiving their own pleasure that has nothing to do with 'loftier' goals- that are truly evil.
BTW, the History Channel 'Legacy of Star Wars' was awesome. There are a number of segments herePosts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eduardo St. Elmo: There is only one "BB" on THESE forums. Remember that.
Blayne: Go watch, "The Emperor and the Assassin." It's Chinese cinema, and it deals with the exact same time period as Hero but with a different subplot. I think both movies show one side of the same coin.
Pooka: The reason I think evil is so hard to find in a pure state is that nobody reaches a state of pure evil without deceiving themselves that there is some good/truth in what they are doing.
MightyCow: This is a pet theory, but I believe that all truly evil people eventually go insane, I think Hitler, Stalin, and perhaps Mao are all examples of this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
