You could be a Jedi in Luke Skywalker's Order and still form relationships and have attachments. The Old Republic, yeah not so much.
Would you rather live in the SW universe or the ST universe?
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
The Jedi Code specifically disallows emotional attachment. So yeah you'd be allowed to have friends. Jedi are friends with other Jedi and other people as well, but it's relationships that are frowned upon because of the emotional attachment.
It's a tough question with lots of points to consider. I mean, on the one hand Star Trek has Orion Slave Girls, but then Star Wars has Twi'lek females but I think I'm going to have to go with the Orions.
So I would rather live in the Trek world.
So I would rather live in the Trek world.
I still can't figure out what "too attached" means. Normal people will care intensely about the well-being of loved ones. Clearly Jedi aren't supposed to get upset when their friends die in battle, and they aren't allowed to have serious relationships outside the Jedi Order, either. Maybe people in advanced states of karmic wisdom can do without these things, but it would take decades for a Jedi to reach that level. In the meantime, what the heck are they supposed to do? Get more and more stressed out and dysfunctional?
Anakin and Obi-Wan are allowed to be friends but not the kind of friends who would care if the other one got killed. Ditto for Anakin's concern about Ahsoka, even though the natural emotional response in that relationship would be for Anakin to not only care about her as a friend but also in a parental and protective way, which makes the situation even more untenable.
And the disconnect between the PT Jedi Era and the NJO makes no sense. If the Jedi could function just fine with attachments, then that makes the PT Jedi look like morons for imposing onerous rules on their people for no damn good reason.
"Friends" are a form of relationship that requires attachment, if you're talking about a valid friendship. What you're describing is more like acquaintanceship. Imagine someone you know getting hit by a bus and killed. How upset does that make you? If not very upset, then that person is not your friend, just some random acquaintance that you are aware of.
We're going to take the thread off on a tangent here but basically the Old Republic Jedi Order were forbidden to engage in an emotional relationship because they are in theory supposed to be dedicated to the Order and a servant to the Republic. If they're emotionally attached to someone else, I suppose the theory is that they're supposed to be selfless and free of mind.
Yet we have a American military that is allowed all sorts of attachments -friendships, getting married, risking their own lives to save buddies in battle even when it's not the smart thing to do - and they manage to be fiercly loyal to our Republic and the military, and quite effective in battle despite the handicap of being emotionally human, so why isn't this the same for the Jedi?
The only way it makes sense is that the no-attachment rule applies only to Force users. If you use the Force and get too attached, you are vulnerable to the Dark Side, because any emotions can turn into bad emotions. Love can lead to concern over a loved one's safety which can lead to the Dark Side.
Where the confusion comes in for me is Star Wars' insistence that only bad emotions lead to the Dark Side. From what I've observed, good emotions can also lead to the Dark Side. The Jedi are vulnerable to the Dark Side at all times and the only solution is for them to be emotionless like Vulcans.
Star Wars should start to be more honest and believable about this. The Jedi impose inhuman rules on their people to compensate for the inherent danger of having a military that is vulnerable to suddenly jumping ship and joining the enemy at any time. (And I have to wonder why the Republic doesn't insist on building up their own military structure of non-Force users. The ability to wave a lightsaber around isn't much compensation for the constant threat of having your generals defect to the enemy without warning.)
And this doesn't explain why the same danger no longer applies in Luke's time.
Another, more cynical, explanation: the Jedi Order and the Republic don't deserve the undying loyalty of the Jedi on their own merits. (The Republic is corrupt and degenerate, and certainly doesn't deserve it.) If the Jedi were allowed to think for themselves, they would chuck the whole thing. So they are coerced into giving up any competing attachments. They're not going to chuck the whole thing if there's nothing to chuck the whole thing in favor of. The Jedi are emotional hostages.
The only way it makes sense is that the no-attachment rule applies only to Force users. If you use the Force and get too attached, you are vulnerable to the Dark Side, because any emotions can turn into bad emotions. Love can lead to concern over a loved one's safety which can lead to the Dark Side.
Where the confusion comes in for me is Star Wars' insistence that only bad emotions lead to the Dark Side. From what I've observed, good emotions can also lead to the Dark Side. The Jedi are vulnerable to the Dark Side at all times and the only solution is for them to be emotionless like Vulcans.
Star Wars should start to be more honest and believable about this. The Jedi impose inhuman rules on their people to compensate for the inherent danger of having a military that is vulnerable to suddenly jumping ship and joining the enemy at any time. (And I have to wonder why the Republic doesn't insist on building up their own military structure of non-Force users. The ability to wave a lightsaber around isn't much compensation for the constant threat of having your generals defect to the enemy without warning.)
And this doesn't explain why the same danger no longer applies in Luke's time.
Another, more cynical, explanation: the Jedi Order and the Republic don't deserve the undying loyalty of the Jedi on their own merits. (The Republic is corrupt and degenerate, and certainly doesn't deserve it.) If the Jedi were allowed to think for themselves, they would chuck the whole thing. So they are coerced into giving up any competing attachments. They're not going to chuck the whole thing if there's nothing to chuck the whole thing in favor of. The Jedi are emotional hostages.
I suspect that this was another thing that Lucas created when he came up with the character of Padme...a forbidden romance for his hero to have. Another reason why the prequels were bungled. When I was a kid I always just assumed that Luke and Leia's mother was another Jedi who was killed during the purge.
I don't mind the forbidden-romance angle, but it's tricky to pull off and the PT made a phenomenal mess of it. Just for starters, how could Padme reconcile luring a young, naive Jedi into a romantic relationship that she knew would a) threaten his career and b) perhaps threaten his "soul" depending on how much normal folks know about the dire consequences of attachments for Force users? Someone like her, who is part of the galactic elite, should be familiar with the rules of the road in regards to Jedi.
Is she some kind of wicked femme fatale? Maybe her persona should have been merged with Ventress and she could be a secret Sith wannabee. Palps tells her he'll drop-kick Dooku and make her second in command if she'll seduce and ruin the Jedi's most promising young recruit.
And I still have no idea how people who live in a high-tech society with FTL travel and sentient robots can lack effective birth control. Once again, the solution is Padme the Femme Fatale: getting pregnant with Force sensitive kiddies was all part of the plan for controlling the galaxy with baby Sith!
Of course this is all horrendously cliched and I'm sure fans would rebel at the notion that both Luke and Leia's parents were rotten, but it's fun to try to think of solutions to the PT.
Is she some kind of wicked femme fatale? Maybe her persona should have been merged with Ventress and she could be a secret Sith wannabee. Palps tells her he'll drop-kick Dooku and make her second in command if she'll seduce and ruin the Jedi's most promising young recruit.
And I still have no idea how people who live in a high-tech society with FTL travel and sentient robots can lack effective birth control. Once again, the solution is Padme the Femme Fatale: getting pregnant with Force sensitive kiddies was all part of the plan for controlling the galaxy with baby Sith!
Of course this is all horrendously cliched and I'm sure fans would rebel at the notion that both Luke and Leia's parents were rotten, but it's fun to try to think of solutions to the PT.
Nah, fans love it when the OT is shitcanned to "improve" the PT.
trek. I'd like to have my own freighter and cruise around space.
I'd rather live in the ST universe. I choose the Federation over the Republic...
The whole point of the PT was that the Jedi Order at that time was wrong. Love is something to be embraced, not shunned. But you also have to be cognizant of your feelings, and not let your passions control you, which is what happened to Anakin.
The New Jedi Order of the novels are much more liberal about love and relationships. Most of the older Jedi by the "present day" have married and had families.
You can do that in Star Wars, too, depending on which era you live in.
The thing about Anakin and Padme is (really this isn't the thread to discuss this I know but I can't help myself) they're entire relationship is kind of just forced together. Anakin has obsessed over his idealized portrait of her since the first time he saw her as a little kid. This adolescent crush, turned into lust and desire. Padme had no feelings other than friendship towards Anakin. Then all of a sudden (granted they were thrust into a dangerous, intense situation) Padme's all like "I love you Annie!" and boom they're married by the end of the movie. Circumstances forced them together and apart. They're just a convenient plot device so that Luke and Leia are born. I never bought their relationship at all. In fact I wonder if Anakin didn't use just a little bit of Force compulsion to manipulate her feelings towards his benefit? Padme's a smart woman supposedly...after he admitted that he slaughtered the Sand People out of vengeance I can't fathom why she would fall in love with him after that. Okay rant over now.
That's not the sense I had. I can understand it being read that way from a Western perspective, but I think Lucas was approaching it more from a Hindu/Buddhist kind of angle: that attachment and need are the source of suffering, of selfishness, of cruelty, and so to stay on the path to enlightenment we must let go of attachments. Which does not mean that you can't care for others; rather, it means just the opposite, that you deny yourself, free yourself of cravings and wants and possessiveness and live an entirely selfless, ego-free existence. You can love, in the sense of valuing others' well-being above your own, just not in the sense of covetous desire and the pursuit of self-gratification. You value others, care for them, but don't try to attach them to yourself, to create bonds of possessiveness.
Anakin's downfall, in this view, wasn't that he loved, but that he loved selfishly. His motivation wasn't so much about doing what was right for Padme as it was about keeping her as part of his life, fulfilling his own craving for her companionship. Ultimately he was driven by his own desires above the good of others, and that was what led him to the Dark Side. If he'd listened to the wisdom of the Jedi, if he'd understood that he could love selflessly rather than possessively, then he could've let go of ego and desire and avoided temptation. I think that was the point Lucas intended. I just don't think he explained it to Western audiences as well as a more competent writer could have.
star trek but with money so you will get off your buit and work! it more real that way!
There is nothing in the Trek universe that prevents people from working to achieve things beyond bare survival, to enrich themselves and others through dedicated effort. There are far more valuable and worthwhile things to strive for than mere money. A culture that defines people's worth purely by how much money they have is a deeply impoverished one in every way that matters.
