Rey in The Force Awakens (Possible Spoilers)

[DWF]

Accepting something new and moving on from the past is definitely growth. But I wouldn't call it growth from child to adult. Just character growth.

In a very short space of time she saw the man she saw a father killed and a friend cut down by the same man who killed Han and who tried to torture her. She was no longer the girl we meet on Jakku.

 

[Dude]

The fact that all this is "an opinion" makes no difference. It is a well-founded and well-reasoned opinion. There is no objective truth in anything, that doesn't mean there is no value in reasoning and inter-subjective discourse.

Saying "Hey, that's understandable but obviously not an objective truth" is intellectually lazy and pretty much saying nothing at all because it would apply to everything. In pluralistic societies "truth" is intersubjective and a product of discourse. There is no a priori objective truth.

I know I can't expect every trekbbs member to be an expert in constructivist epistemology, psychology or discourse theory but you could at least make an effort here.

While I agree with you on the representation of women and minorities (including sexual minorities) in media, your post goes too far and is actually dangerous in a democracy. There is absolutely objective truth. This is why people have certain inherent rights in a constitutional democracy, we don't have to have some sort of pluralistic discussion on these.

For instance, rape is always wrong. There was a time when many people in our country argued that there were circumstances when women "deserved" it or were at fault in the situation. See Mike Tyson's rape conviction as an example. It doesn't matter that a majority of people thought at the time that the victim was to blame, he was rightly convicted of rape. Because it is an objective truth that rape is wrong.

I found the last line of your post to be unnecessarily combative. If someone doesn't understand your message, it is generally considered rude to blame the listener. Most of us would take responsibilty and say that we hadn't communicated effectively.

 

[{ Emilia }]

The fact that all this is "an opinion" makes no difference. It is a well-founded and well-reasoned opinion. There is no objective truth in anything, that doesn't mean there is no value in reasoning and inter-subjective discourse.

Saying "Hey, that's understandable but obviously not an objective truth" is intellectually lazy and pretty much saying nothing at all because it would apply to everything. In pluralistic societies "truth" is intersubjective and a product of discourse. There is no a priori objective truth.

I know I can't expect every trekbbs member to be an expert in constructivist epistemology, psychology or discourse theory but you could at least make an effort here.

While I agree with you on the representation of women and minorities (including sexual minorities) in media

I'm glad we agree on the part that's actually relevant to the thread.

, your post goes too far and is actually dangerous in a democracy.
There is absolutely objective truth.

No, the assumption that there is an "objective truth" is what's dangerous in a democracy. It's a very "modern" concept in the sense that postmodern philosophy has been rejecting the idea for decades. And it's not just philosophy but every kind of science that's been affected by constructivism.

Assuming that there are absolute truths leads to a dangerous universalism and fundamentalism. You will find that Europe is way more postmodern than the US in that regard. Two World Wars have taught us that "absolute truths" (ideologies) lead to disaster.

There is no objective truth because there is no objectivity. Everybody constructs their reality based on their own experiences and values. Science has accepted that for about 50 years unless you're one of the last living positivists.

The thing is: there is inter-subjective truth. Inter-subjectivity is a concept that is born out of discourse. Many subjects having a discourse and then agreeing on something is how we get to inter-subjective truths. (This is also how science works. It's a product of an intersubjective discourse between subjective scientists. (again: unless you're the last living positivist))

Some of those truths can be found in the constitutions of countries. The German constitution for example says that "Human Dignity shall be inviolable" and that part of the constitution cannot be changed (I'm not German but it's a wonderful example.). Still most of these constitutions were the result of a pluralistic negotiation process. We believe that human dignity is a value that should be protected.

And just like there's no objective truth there is also no a priori common good. As pluralistic societies we have embraced Locke's social contract theory, not Rousseau's.

This is why people have certain inherent rights in a constitutional democracy, we don't have to have some sort of pluralistic discussion on these.

We did, that's the thing. That is why these rights ended up in our constitutions. These values are the prized products of centuries (or more) of philosophical and political thought and intersubjective discourse. They didn't just come into existence out of nothing.

You're acting like inter-subjectivity and subjective truths are a bad thing that aren't worth protecting. The opposite is true. We have incredibly good reasons to believe that human dignity should be inviolable and that we need to defend it against those who threaten it. But that's not because of some god-given, objective truth but because there was (at the time the constitution was written) and is now a widely held intersubjective belief that human dignity is the basis of a free society. For very. good. reasons.

For instance, rape is always wrong.

Wrong and right are created by human consciousness. Without humans there is no right or wrong. There's no God or universal principle that dictates right or wrong.

That is what I mean when I say there's no objective truth that exists without humans. We construct our world and we have, for very very good reasons, decided that rape is wrong.

I know constructivism and postmodern thought makes people feel uneasy at first but the thing is: The conventions, rules and ethical standards we set are no less valuable and worthy of protection just because they're human constructs. They are real. But they didn't exist before humans discussed these things for thousands of years. We created them and we should be proud of them.

In the interest of keeping the thread on track I suggest we take this to PMs, though. I'd love to discuss this with you.

 

[Manticore]

I know constructivism and postmodern thought makes people feel uneasy at first but the thing is: The conventions, rules and ethical standards we set are no less valuable and worthy of protection just because they're human constructs. They are real.

In fact, this is one of the key reasons why I'm an atheist - I find that ethics and morality are more important when we set them ourselves, and when we decide that they are right because we said they are right, rather than less. If morality is imposed from outside, it devalues it. Why should we accept some other being's morality rather than our own?

In the interest of keeping the thread on track I suggest we take this to PMs, though. I'd love to discuss this with you.

Ah, poop.

 

[Dude]

The fact that all this is "an opinion" makes no difference. It is a well-founded and well-reasoned opinion. There is no objective truth in anything, that doesn't mean there is no value in reasoning and inter-subjective discourse.

Saying "Hey, that's understandable but obviously not an objective truth" is intellectually lazy and pretty much saying nothing at all because it would apply to everything. In pluralistic societies "truth" is intersubjective and a product of discourse. There is no a priori objective truth.

I know I can't expect every trekbbs member to be an expert in constructivist epistemology, psychology or discourse theory but you could at least make an effort here.

While I agree with you on the representation of women and minorities (including sexual minorities) in media

I'm glad we agree on the part that's actually relevant to the thread.




No, the assumption that there is an "objective truth" is what's dangerous in a democracy. It's a very "modern" concept in the sense that postmodern philosophy has been rejecting the idea for decades. And it's not just philosophy but every kind of science that's been affected by constructivism.

Assuming that there are absolute truths leads to a dangerous universalism and fundamentalism. You will find that Europe is way more postmodern than the US in that regard. Two World Wars have taught us that "absolute truths" (ideologies) lead to disaster.

There is no objective truth because there is no objectivity. Everybody constructs their reality based on their own experiences and values. Science has accepted that for about 50 years unless you're one of the last living positivists.

The thing is: there is inter-subjective truth. Inter-subjectivity is a concept that is born out of discourse. Many subjects having a discourse and then agreeing on something is how we get to inter-subjective truths. (This is also how science works. It's a product of an intersubjective discourse between subjective scientists. (again: unless you're the last living positivist))

Some of those truths can be found in the constitutions of countries. The German constitution for example says that "Human Dignity shall be inviolable" and that part of the constitution cannot be changed (I'm not German but it's a wonderful example.). Still most of these constitutions were the result of a pluralistic negotiation process. We believe that human dignity is a value that should be protected.

And just like there's no objective truth there is also no a priori common good. As pluralistic societies we have embraced Locke's social contract theory, not Rousseau's.

This is why people have certain inherent rights in a constitutional democracy, we don't have to have some sort of pluralistic discussion on these.

We did, that's the thing. That is why these rights ended up in our constitutions. These values are the prized products of centuries (or more) of philosophical and political thought and intersubjective discourse. They didn't just come into existence out of nothing.

You're acting like inter-subjectivity and subjective truths are a bad thing that aren't worth protecting. The opposite is true. We have incredibly good reasons to believe that human dignity should be inviolable and that we need to defend it against those who threaten it. But that's not because of some god-given, objective truth but because there was (at the time the constitution was written) and is now a widely held intersubjective belief that human dignity is the basis of a free society. For very. good. reasons.

For instance, rape is always wrong.

Wrong and right are created by human consciousness. Without humans there is no right or wrong. There's no God or universal principle that dictates right or wrong.

That is what I mean when I say there's no objective truth that exists without humans. We construct our world and we have, for very very good reasons, decided that rape is wrong.

I know constructivism and postmodern thought makes people feel uneasy at first but the thing is: The conventions, rules and ethical standards we set are no less valuable and worthy of protection just because they're human constructs. They are real. But they didn't exist before humans discussed these things for thousands of years. We created them and we should be proud of them.

In the interest of keeping the thread on track I suggest we take this to PMs, though. I'd love to discuss this with you.

I didn't want to cut your post up. Before we went to PM, I did want to acknowledge that you responded and that it was a very thoughtful and appreciated post. I felt it disrespectful to you not to say it in public when your post was public.

I suspect you are right about derailing the thread and it dawns on me that perhaps the previous brevity in your posts on the subject was out of concern that you might do so?

With Mantisnow's post in mind, I do want to say that not all objective law has to be theologically based. The founders of the United States, many/most of whom were not Christian as people often claim and assume, believed in Natural Law (yes, I know that it is much more complex and my very simplified statement). The bottom line is that some things are simply wrong, it doesn't have to come from theological underpinnings. But I'll drop it there at this point and leave the last word in this thread to others when they reply (at least pertaining to what grew into off-topic issues).

Emma Snow, given that at least one other person else is interested in the topic, too, would you object to going to TNZ or Miscellaneous with this instead? I am a much more infrequent poster than I used to be, does Miscellaneous still permit sanitized discussion of such topics?

I appreciate your offer to discuss the matter further and would enjoy the conversation, too.

 

[Manticore]

With Mantisnow's post in mind, I do want to say that not all objective law has to be theologically based. The founders of the United States, many/most of whom were not Christian as people often claim and assume, believed in Natural Law (yes, I know that it is much more complex and my very simplified statement). The bottom line is that some things are simply wrong, it doesn't have to come from theological underpinnings. But I'll drop it there at this point and leave the last word in this thread to others when they reply (at least pertaining to what grew into off-topic issues).

Oh certainly not. I was using { Emilia }'s comments to springboard off of something in my own life that was related. I'm not nearly informed enough on constructivism to comment in any other fashion.

I'd prefer TNZ as that's my main hangout.

 

[Ithekro]

What degree comes up with that? I don't recall any of that in college, even within the political sciences.

As for Rey, I just like her. Not entirely sure why.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I just realized why I like Rey so much. Linky

 

[theenglish]

With Mantisnow's post in mind, I do want to say that not all objective law has to be theologically based. The founders of the United States, many/most of whom were not Christian as people often claim and assume, believed in Natural Law (yes, I know that it is much more complex and my very simplified statement). The bottom line is that some things are simply wrong, it doesn't have to come from theological underpinnings. But I'll drop it there at this point and leave the last word in this thread to others when they reply (at least pertaining to what grew into off-topic issues).

Oh certainly not. I was using { Emilia }'s comments to springboard off of something in my own life that was related. I'm not nearly informed enough on constructivism to comment in any other fashion.

I'd prefer TNZ as that's my main hangout.

Does TNZ still exist? Please post wherever you decide to take this--I'm very interested in seeing this discussion continue in a more appropriate forum.

 

[Manticore]

With Mantisnow's post in mind, I do want to say that not all objective law has to be theologically based. The founders of the United States, many/most of whom were not Christian as people often claim and assume, believed in Natural Law (yes, I know that it is much more complex and my very simplified statement). The bottom line is that some things are simply wrong, it doesn't have to come from theological underpinnings. But I'll drop it there at this point and leave the last word in this thread to others when they reply (at least pertaining to what grew into off-topic issues).

Oh certainly not. I was using { Emilia }'s comments to springboard off of something in my own life that was related. I'm not nearly informed enough on constructivism to comment in any other fashion.

I'd prefer TNZ as that's my main hangout.

Does TNZ still exist?

Yup! Should be here: http://www.trekbbs.com/profile.php?do=editusergroups. You can opt-in on this link.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I think though the course of the movie Rey goes from being a girl to a woman and that came from JJ Abrams.

No.

Rey was a fully independent woman when we first encountered her on Jakku.

She was, however, sheltered and fenced in by her environment, and clearly in need of a change in her life (cue Joseph Campbell).

She certainly evolves from her life on Jakku, though. For example, her actions have increasingly larger consequences (i.e. on Jakku she only had herself to worry about, by the end of the film she was fighting to protect those she cared for, and the galaxy itself). But that doesn't diminish her independence and maturity at the beginning of the film.

Heck, that independence and maturity are what make her a much more plausible hero than, say, Luke in ANH.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I didn't want to cut your post up. Before we went to PM, I did want to acknowledge that you responded and that it was a very thoughtful and appreciated post. I felt it disrespectful to you not to say it in public when your post was public.

Thanks, I really appreciate that.

I suspect you are right about derailing the thread and it dawns on me that perhaps the previous brevity in your posts on the subject was out of concern that you might do so?

Yeah, that was pretty much it.
Looking forward to continuing the conversation in either PMs or TNZ.

Does TNZ still exist? Please post wherever you decide to take this--I'm very interested in seeing this discussion continue in a more appropriate forum.

TNZ still exists and it's actually a pretty nice place these days for the most part. It's a nice little community and the quality of discussion can be pretty high. I tend to avoid leaving TNZ. The rest of the board is scary.


Anyway... Rey?!?

 

[DWF]

I think though the course of the movie Rey goes from being a girl to a woman and that came from JJ Abrams.

No.

Rey was a fully independent woman when we first encountered her on Jakku.

She was, however, sheltered and fenced in by her environment, and clearly in need of a change in her life (cue Joseph Campbell).

She certainly evolves from her life on Jakku, though. For example, her actions have increasingly larger consequences (i.e. on Jakku she only had herself to worry about, by the end of the film she was fighting to protect those she cared for, and the galaxy itself). But that doesn't diminish her independence and maturity at the beginning of the film.

Heck, that independence and maturity are what make her a much more plausible hero than, say, Luke in ANH.

No, she had a doll in her home she playfully put on the helmet and she was awaiting the return of her family. She was even too afraid to touch the lightsaber, but in the end she took up the lightsaber and faced down the man who killed Han and injured Finn.

 

[theenglish]

I think though the course of the movie Rey goes from being a girl to a woman and that came from JJ Abrams.

No.

Rey was a fully independent woman when we first encountered her on Jakku.

She was, however, sheltered and fenced in by her environment, and clearly in need of a change in her life (cue Joseph Campbell).

She certainly evolves from her life on Jakku, though. For example, her actions have increasingly larger consequences (i.e. on Jakku she only had herself to worry about, by the end of the film she was fighting to protect those she cared for, and the galaxy itself). But that doesn't diminish her independence and maturity at the beginning of the film.

Heck, that independence and maturity are what make her a much more plausible hero than, say, Luke in ANH.

No, she had a doll in her home she playfully put on the helmet and she was awaiting the return of her family. She was even too afraid to touch the lightsaber, but in the end she took up the lightsaber and faced down the man who killed Han and injured Finn.

I think this is it. At the beginning she was very similar to the savvy and street smart orphan in many modern coming of age stories.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

I'll go out on a limb and say she's Luke's daughter.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I think though the course of the movie Rey goes from being a girl to a woman and that came from JJ Abrams.

No.

Rey was a fully independent woman when we first encountered her on Jakku.

She was, however, sheltered and fenced in by her environment, and clearly in need of a change in her life (cue Joseph Campbell).

She certainly evolves from her life on Jakku, though. For example, her actions have increasingly larger consequences (i.e. on Jakku she only had herself to worry about, by the end of the film she was fighting to protect those she cared for, and the galaxy itself). But that doesn't diminish her independence and maturity at the beginning of the film.

Heck, that independence and maturity are what make her a much more plausible hero than, say, Luke in ANH.

No, she had a doll in her home she playfully put on the helmet and she was awaiting the return of her family. She was even too afraid to touch the lightsaber, but in the end she took up the lightsaber and faced down the man who killed Han and injured Finn.

Still no.

Calling her a "girl" is a categorically incorrect assessment of the character. The doll was shown, never interacted with and the helmet? Really? What the hell was there to do for amusement or distraction for her in her own home? Heck, I know plenty of adults who put on helmets to amuse themselves in privacy of their own homes - not to mention the public displays at conventions. That's hardly a reliable criterion for calling her a girl.

No, while she clearly was stuck in the past (the doll, the dying plant, the waiting for family), and while she certainly was languishing in her life (as evidenced by her reflection on the old woman doing the same task as her), Rey was most definitely mature and independent at the beginning of the film (scavenging for herself, bartering for herself, fending off attackers for herself, etc.).

As such, an assessment calling her a "girl" is flat out misguided at best.

 

[{ Emilia }]

^ This.

Calling her a girl is rather silly. She's an independent woman right from the start of the movie. Making a living, having a home, fighting off the scavenger who captures BB-8, fighting off the guys trying to steal BB-8 from her...

"Stop taking my hand, I know how to run" showcases this. She's independent, she's an adult. That one line explains who she is. She doesn't need anybody to hold her hand like you would with a child.

She grows as a character during the movie, no doubt. But not in the way DWF is claiming. In fact I thought it was refreshing to have a strong independent woman be the heroine of the story. She obviously has some trauma from being left alone there but she's not the child-like girl who needs help.

Reminds of what I wrote about how female heroes are often only accepted if they start out as weak and in need of help. Some men can only accept a strong woman if she was a damsel in distress first.

I'm glad TFA is different.

 

[fireproof78]

...if one of her parents is Luke, I will be quite upset. I have strong feelings about someone just abandoning their child on a blasted desert planet, so there better be a very good explanation. If Luke is her dad, I will lose a measure of respect for him, as was the case with Obi-Wan after the PT.

Yeah, it's a fictional character relationship. But, that's something that I feel strongly about.

If she was dropped off as a last ditch effort to save her by her mom, who was then killed before telling Luke where she went, then that's a pretty good out for that particular problem.

That is one of the few reasons that I can accept.

However, I'm curious if that's the reason they give or its just a *shrug* not important detail.

Or, she's Luke's daughter and he did it to "keep her safe" which goes back to my point of being annoyed at such a decision to leave her on Jakku.

Long story short, it better be a very good reason that she got left.

not everybody needs to be the son/daughter/niece/nephew/cousin of existing characters.

Kor

Maybe not EVERYBODY but I kind of want the main numbered series to be a very cohesive story & making it about a certain family is a neat way to do it. This would give a good justification to why Episode 1 is the 1st episode: The story starts with the first force-sensitive Skywalker.

Also, Shmi totally is the exwife of Palpatine & she is a big fat liar! Palpatine is Vader's father!

I already knew that

Personally, I'm mixed on Rey's parentage. On the one had, her being a Solo or a Skywalker would keep it a family story line.

On the other hand, it could become a tale about the family you create, with Luke building a new family in his Jedi Academy and restarting with Rey and Finn as his adopted kids.

 

[DWF]

No.

Rey was a fully independent woman when we first encountered her on Jakku.

She was, however, sheltered and fenced in by her environment, and clearly in need of a change in her life (cue Joseph Campbell).

She certainly evolves from her life on Jakku, though. For example, her actions have increasingly larger consequences (i.e. on Jakku she only had herself to worry about, by the end of the film she was fighting to protect those she cared for, and the galaxy itself). But that doesn't diminish her independence and maturity at the beginning of the film.

Heck, that independence and maturity are what make her a much more plausible hero than, say, Luke in ANH.

No, she had a doll in her home she playfully put on the helmet and she was awaiting the return of her family. She was even too afraid to touch the lightsaber, but in the end she took up the lightsaber and faced down the man who killed Han and injured Finn.

Still no.

Calling her a "girl" is a categorically incorrect assessment of the character. The doll was shown, never interacted with and the helmet? Really? What the hell was there to do for amusement or distraction for her in her own home? Heck, I know plenty of adults who put on helmets to amuse themselves in privacy of their own homes - not to mention the public displays at conventions. That's hardly a reliable criterion for calling her a girl.

No, while she clearly was stuck in the past (the doll, the dying plant, the waiting for family), and while she certainly was languishing in her life (as evidenced by her reflection on the old woman doing the same task as her), Rey was most definitely mature and independent at the beginning of the film (scavenging for herself, bartering for herself, fending off attackers for herself, etc.).

As such, an assessment calling her a "girl" is flat out misguided at best.

Until she refused to sell BB8 she worked only for herself, until she took on some responsibility she cared only for herself. but she took BB and Finn right away. She aslso left her old life behind just as Luke and Anakin did,symbolic of moving out the house. He life as it was no longer existed, in the end she became a more complete person.

Really I think we're too used to characters like Padme and Leia who were forced to grow up alittle too quickly. She took responsibility for herself and suvived not really living or moving beyond herself, until BB and Finn came into her life.

 

[DWF]

^ This.

Calling her a girl is rather silly. She's an independent woman right from the start of the movie. Making a living, having a home, fighting off the scavenger who captures BB-8, fighting off the guys trying to steal BB-8 from her...

"Stop taking my hand, I know how to run" showcases this. She's independent, she's an adult. That one line explains who she is. She doesn't need anybody to hold her hand like you would with a child.

She grows as a character during the movie, no doubt. But not in the way DWF is claiming. In fact I thought it was refreshing to have a strong independent woman be the heroine of the story. She obviously has some trauma from being left alone there but she's not the child-like girl who needs help.

Reminds of what I wrote about how female heroes are often only accepted if they start out as weak and in need of help. Some men can only accept a strong woman if she was a damsel in distress first.

I'm glad TFA is different.

Leia and Padme were strong independent women too. And you're confusng a child-like with girl. Being independent doesn't mean not needing other people as Finn was leaving she tried to stop him from going. She clearly wants and needs other people, even if she might not need them for her survival.

ETA: She's refered to a girl in the movie, no doubt Kylo won't refer to her that way in the next movie though. BTW Luke is refered to a a boy in TESB.