Mr Plinkett Last Jedi Review

[Zontar]

Also, claiming stoicism is masculine is utter nonsense. I've know far too many women how can't express emotions. I've known far too many women who bear insane burdens. You know, like a stoic.

That's not what stoicism is though, it's keeping your emotions in check. It doesn't have anything to with with masculinity, sure, and definitely nothing to do with toxic masculinity (though I take exception to the very concept), but it isn't an inability or unwillingness to express emotions, it's just having the emotional maturity and control to keep it in check.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That's not what stoicism is though, it's keeping your emotions in check. It doesn't have anything to with with masculinity, sure, and definitely nothing to do with toxic masculinity (though I take exception to the very concept), but it isn't an inability or unwillingness to express emotions, it's just having the emotional maturity and control to keep it in check.

That's not stoicism. Also that's a pisspoor demonstration of 'emotional maturity'. 'Emotional maturity' would be not willingly putting up with people's garbage and telling them as such. Not to be someone's doormat. If you have no real reason to be annoyed by someone's actions, chances are someone isn't actually trying to attract your ire. If someone is trying to attract you're ire, they aren't actually going to stop until you tell them to.

When I was in secondary school, guess how many bullies stopped bullying me with your take on 'emotional maturity'? Precisely zero.

Instead I took a cricket bat to my bullies. Guess how many continued to bully me afterwards? Precisely zero.

Stoicism is best reflected in taking a stand that leads one to pain and hardship for something greater. Stoicism is not accepting abuse with good humour. Stoicism is rooted in the idea that motivations for virtue are not on thebasis of ease or the escape of pain, or whatever is most convenient. It'ss about excluding oneself from the pursuit of merely the smallest units of pain or quickest means to pleasure, but instead actively choosing to suffer and shoulder burdens with internal strength towards some logical good in the face of immorality.

In my case? Willing to go toe to toe with a bully 2 feet taller and 4 years older than me (the bat did help level the playing field because I'm not stupid <.<) .... Heraclitus himself would have given me a high five ... As long as one can feel guilt, one can act with courage to confront evil with evil's actual bane to achieve life without the tyranny of another's immorality and do so with best intentions.

Stoicism is not merely being a doormat. That is quite literally the opposite of stoicism. You cannot be stoic if your actions are dictated by the least noble... rather one can only be stoic when their actions paradox those of the unvirtuous and thus they shoulder the burdens of that conflict.

A virtuous person is a paradox to itself in an unvirtuous world for which they persist in quiet solemnity that they seek not to challenge the unvirtuous for their fear of suffering... To be complicit in another's suffering. Instead a stoic person takes a stand and suffers the world crashing down upon them for refusing to be complicit. That even suicide is preferable to being complicit with the world's unvirtuous agents.

You cannot be stoic if you are personally complicit with the actions of the unvirtuous. Stoicism means nothing if you, personally, are not suffering the unvirtuous and their agency, or complicit in its continued existence. That is literally anathema to stoic virtue.

 

[Zontar]

That's not stoicism.

But it is, and I have no idea where you got your view on what constitutes stoicism because it is quite literally a foreign one up here.

 

[Agema]

That's not what stoicism is though, it's keeping your emotions in check.

It's a little more complex than that. At worst, "keeping your emotions in check" could be viewed as emotional repression, which is not generally a good thing.

Stoicism is more about practical ways of dealing with adversity. Adversity is inevitable, and much of the suffering in many ways derives from the mismatch between reality, and a fantasy that things could be different. Ideally therefore, stoicism is not that one should keep one's emotions in check, but to not feel the emotion in the first place.

So a) accept the inevitability of adversity; b) prepare for adversity; and when adversity occurs c) accept its reality and d) set to work on rebuilding and recovering. Thus you should lead a happier life.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Lets see, what did his mentors-to-be do when they futzed everything up and failed to stop the empire rising?

One went into hiding on a desert planet.

The other went into hiding on a swamp planet.

Jedi aren't all conquering bad asses here to kick ass and take names. Their about balance, harmony and non violence and defence as a last resort.

The one time Luke flat out kicks Darth Vader's arse, its because he FAILED to control his emotions and almost fell to the darkside. And for on fleeting instant, he almost did that again. He almost killed someone, and led them to believe they had to defend themselves ruthlessly, and all of luke's students died (or maybe some became Knights Of Ren) as a result.

And that shook Luke, and gave him the idea that the best thing he could do was GTFO before he made things worse.

See, this is where I feel Johnson failed to the point of contradicting what could be said to be his own thesis on the topic -- that the Force simply exists, and it's the individual that dictates whether it's to be used for good or ill (i.e. the Potentium view of the Force).

The only way the "Luke vs. Kylo" flashback can be reasonably interpreted by anyone familiar with the lore, is Luke is tempted by the Dark Side to kill Kylo in his sleep, and he stopped himself by recognizing it for what it is because he felt that same temptation in the past. Meanwhile, it was Luke's belief in his ability to redeem Vader, and refusal to abide by Obi-Wan's and Yoda's wishes, that allowed him to succeed...but when it came time for Rey to confront Kylo, Luke repeated Obi-Wan's and Yoda's failures, not by hiding away or by advising Rey to not confront him, but rather by believing Kylo irredeemable.

The only consistency or justification to be found there, is Luke was blinded by a sense of personal betrayal, just as Obi-Wan and Yoda were before him. Except, even that isn't completely consistent -- what triggered Kylo's fall was Luke's misguided and aborted attempt to kill him, whereas with Obi-Wan and Yoda, Anakin fell despite their best efforts to train and aid him. Luke has no cause to feel a sense of personal betrayal as Obi-Wan and Yoda did, just shame at having been tempted by the Dark Side at a critical moment and genuinely failing his apprentice.

The Luke we see in TLJ is clearly more educated about the Jedi Order, its past failures, and its weaknesses than the Luke we see at the end of RotJ. He knows Obi-Wan and Yoda weren't perfect, nor any other Jedi, because he himself proved them wrong at a critical juncture by redeeming Vader -- the monster the Jedi Order indirectly created, like every other Sith in the canon -- in the end. Yet, despite his broadened knowledge and experience, through disillusionment he's firmly committed to the mistakes of the past. And, unlike Obi-Wan and Yoda, he wasn't hiding out of necessity -- to stay alive long enough to train new Jedi, to eventually overthrow the Sith -- he was hiding to prevent his knowledge from spreading while he awaited death.

Luke was in a position to understand truth is often subjective, and even the wisest and most powerful Jedi can be blinded by their own deeply-held beliefs. He had first-hand experience in knowing no one is truly beyond redemption, and even if due to his role in Kylo's fall Luke could never reach him, someone else like Rey potentially could...and that's where the film failed. It doesn't convey that message, and in fact contradicts that message, which is what could and would have saved Luke's entire character arc.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

But it is, and I have no idea where you got your view on what constitutes stoicism because it is quite literally a foreign one up here.

But it's not ... whatever fucking nonsense you're spewing isthe type of 'stoicism' of people that is pointlessly so at best, and at worst a false understanding of adversity. Devoid and sheltered, and ultimately the type of adversity that is pointless to the people that actually endure.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

So a) accept the inevitability of adversity; b) prepare for adversity; and when adversity occurs c) accept its reality and d) set to work on rebuilding and recovering. Thus you should lead a happier life.

Garbo.

Stoics generally agree the highest virtue is suicide before hypocrisy. Being a stoic is not 'happy' nor does it even make the argument happiness should be a prerequisite of mortal life, but rather virtue as the center of human good. The Commonwealth of one made manifest to all through equal spirit. Virtue is not virtue if adversity is dictated by the unvirtuous and one chooses to merely accept that and be complicit in the suffering it causes. There os zero reason to allow pain to come needlessly.

Since when the hell did stoicism get transformed into 'Fuck you. Got mine. Live with it...'?

What you're spouting now? The same empty platitudes of every idiot that says garbage like; "Hardship builds character..." All the while they know nothing about it.

Quite literally the opposite of stoicism. You are meant to check evil to come, not simply allow it to pass... in the same way justice requires that one acts in order to place injustice behind them, or to cancel its existence to come.

Being a stoic means active agency against injustices of others. For to allow the unvirtuous is no less than to create the unvirtuous. Whether because one suffers it, or because one is compromised to it existing. The stoic does not act with calm repose when someone reveals the awful ills of the world inflicted upon them. The stoic stands and they assist to rectify those injustices. They shoulder burdens. They attempt to cancel its emergence and check it in the future. They don't spout off empty, pathetic platitudes.

This...


... is a better reading of stoicism than simply "Shit happens..."

Being a stoic means embracing eupatheia. Through wisdom, good judgment (not idle speculation) replace the possibility of anger and achieve a joy of living what is ultimately a pointlessly brief existence. What it certainly does not do is ixnay actual human capacity and active agency out of the equation. No, you have an actual obligation to defend it for yourself and others.

No matter how 'inevitable' that bully that beats the shit out of you and others ... you are justified when all other means are exhausted to negate its unvirtuousness. If that requires you put them to the ground, to makeit incredibly clear that if they touch you or your friends again they better damn well kill you, so be it.

Stoicism is not a surrender to adversity, rather it is applied reason to praxis to actively be evil's bane and to prevent as far as possible other people being compromised by anger and hatreds that they might be denied their virtue in the face of it.

The evil of the action is the reason of the person that confronts it. That is the only benefit of adversity in that it informs you of what must be done ... and there is no reason why you should allow yourself or others to feel it where and when it can be checked and removed of its existence.

 

[Zontar]

its been like 9 months since the Last Jedi and I've yet to see like more than 5 complex thoughts argued about it, and of those five they've yet to be solved, changed, or improved upon.

for nine months.

Think that's bad? Weebs have been arguing if Rei or Asuka are best girl for 23 years. 23 years!

 

[Trunkage]

Also, claiming stoicism is masculine is utter nonsense. I've know far too many women how can't express emotions. I've known far too many women who bear insane burdens. You know, like a stoic.

That's not what stoicism is though, it's keeping your emotions in check. It doesn't have anything to with with masculinity, sure, and definitely nothing to do with toxic masculinity (though I take exception to the very concept), but it isn't an inability or unwillingness to express emotions, it's just having the emotional maturity and control to keep it in check.

I think it can be about emotions but is not limited to it. I can be about doing things too, like taking extra responsibility at work without reward. While I think Agema was closest to my interpretation, happiness is not a goal. Happiness is just as bad as anger or sadness. Content or fulfilled life might be closer.

I see toxic masculinity as a culmination of things that are NOT tied to men. But it can be tied to society expectations of usually placed on men and taking that to the extreme. Keeping your emotions in check is great. Suppress them until it wrecks havoc on you, and then usually those close to you is bad. Keeping your emotions in check means that you can express them with being controlled by them, its not the absence of expression.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

Luke is not a coward. He doesn't lack bravery; he lacks motivation.

He has lost his belief in The Force as the answer to a better galaxy. This is, after all, a man whose father fell to the dark side and was integral in the creation of the Empire, and who when attempting to train new Jedi saw one - his own nephew, no less - turn to the dark side, kill all the other recruits and join Empire 2.0. He sees Jedis, he sees catastrophe waiting to happen. He just needs convincing that won't be the case this time round.

I say he is a coward because he runs away from the problem he created. See, I would respect him if he was on the warpath to take out Kylo and Snoke and THEN end the Jedi. Or I would respect him, if he went into deep meditation/ archival research mode to figure out what went wrong and how to stop it from happening again, and then going out to stop Kylo and Snoke in some way.

What I do not respect because it's cowardly and stupid is to say he wants to end the Jedi because otherwise 'othwerise catastrophe is waiting to happen.' It's like, dude, the catastrophe already happened. There's already Sith. They came back. It's late and now is the time to stop them. Think about hypothetical and academic dangers of the Jedi later. You have got real Sith with a penchant for building super weapons to stop. Fix your mess first. THEN retire into a grumpy old hermit. But he leaves the rest of the galaxy to solve his mess. What makes it worse, is he holds the best chance of success of going up against a pair of Sith, but he won't be the defender that the Jedi were intended to be. That's cowardice: to make a mess and as the most capable person to clean it up, you walk away to let others with much less ability to do your dirty work for you. They did Luke dirty.

Lets see, what did his mentors-to-be do when they futzed everything up and failed to stop the empire rising?

One went into hiding on a desert planet.

The other went into hiding on a swamp planet.

Jedi aren't all conquering bad asses here to kick ass and take names. Their about balance, harmony and non violence and defence as a last resort.

The one time Luke flat out kicks Darth Vader's arse, its because he FAILED to control his emotions and almost fell to the darkside. And for on fleeting instant, he almost did that again. He almost killed someone, and led them to believe they had to defend themselves ruthlessly, and all of luke's students died (or maybe some became Knights Of Ren) as a result.

And that shook Luke, and gave him the idea that the best thing he could do was GTFO before he made things worse.

Very different situations, and even then Yoda and Kenobi attempted more. As far as I can tell, the New Order was not revealed and so all there is Ben Kenobi and his buddies on the run. The New Republic is still in control (I guess- backstory is not really a thing with these movies.) By comparison, there was that whole Order 66 that ambushed most of the Jedi, the Emperor seized power of the known galaxy with cloned troops at his beck and call... the entire galaxy, in effect turned against the Jedi. What was their response? Yoda goes to take on the Emperor, Kenobi after Skywalker. Yoda fails as the Emperor turns out to be too strong. Kenobi wins, but doesn't go for the kill. But ultimately both have to retreat because the galaxy is against them. Even still, they change the signal code to try and save whatever Jedi might have escaped the ambush... and then they have a plan. That's important. It's a long term plan, to be sure. But the plan appears to be, let the Skywalker twins grow up and they'll get a second chance to end the Empire.

By comparison, Luke tries to murder his nephew over a bad vision, and then when his Academy is destroyed... does nothing. Doesn't try to meditate/ researched to solve what went wrong (what I assumed). He just sits on his hands while the galaxy gets worse and worse. At the point in which Ben goes psycho, the rest of the galaxy is still under control. Yoda and Kenobi had to make a tactical retreat to regroup and play the long con. Luke has no reason to make a tactical retreat, and did nothing but sulk on an island.

And that shook Luke, and gave him the idea that the best thing he could do was GTFO before he made things worse.

How could it get worse if he stays? There were no more Jedi to corrupt. It's already the worst case scenario- evil Jedi are back and there are no Jedi to oppose them, except himself. The monster is already here to oppose. There can be no new monsters. It can only get worse if he peaces out (which it does) because there is no opposition.