Star Wars Philosophy

[matrix3509]

WARNING: The following post may contain pointless conjecture on an extremely silly topic. Walls of text may or may not also follow. Also, be aware, nerditis runs rampant here.

*Ahem*
Now that thats over with lets get to the topic. I've been seeing many philosophy threads lately and I thought I would give my thread a little twist. Yes I know that I am a complete and utterly hopeless nerd for even considering talking about the topic to this depth, so please refrain from telling me.

So, I've been thinking a lot lately about the opposing philosophies in the Star Wars Universe.

For now I'll just stick with the underlying complexities of the Sith and Darth Bane's Rule of Two.

The Sith at its core, the Sith principles are a perverted form of Darwinism. Basically its, "those that aren't strong enough to compete, shouldn't be allowed to leach off others."

This is very problematic for large groups of Sith, since they are constantly fighting for power, they have no energy left for fighting their real enemy, the Jedi. This of course also has its exceptions. As is the case with the great Sith Lords.

Its been said that the power of Jedi and Sith has diminished gradually since their respective inceptions. This is most likely true. Part of the reason that Sith usually got weaker as leadership changed hands was because the leaders never taught everything they knew to their students in an attempt to keep them from ascending. This is why every couple of generation there is an exceptionally strong Sith that comes along. This was why Exar Kun became so powerful, he found a holocron containing basically everything the Freedon Nadd had ever learned.

The reason is that you had massively powerful Sith Lords holding the order together. The likes of Marka Ragnos and Ajunta Pall were so apparently powerful, that they held the Sith together through the total fear. No one would dare go up against Ragnos. Consequently, Ragnos ruled until he dies a natural death, an unheard of prospect among the ranks of Sith.

The teachings of the Sith demand the regular and brutal replacement of their leaders. However, the followers can only become the leaders once they grow strong enough to kill the previous leader. The leaders of course knew what the teachings dictated and sought to distract their followers with in-fighting.

However, this only works when there is a massively powerful leader in place. As the strength of the ranks diminishes with each generation, the leaders become less strong, and the role of leadership changes hands ever more quickly. If the trend is allowed to continue (as it was in KOTOR), there is essentially no one strong enough to take over, and the Sith implode.

Here is where Bane's Rule of Two comes in. It was truly ingenious, for all the right reasons. It essentially allows the Sith to continue to live on forever, and it simultaneously allows the Sith to practice their teaching, albiet in micro form.

This is what I find so fascinating about this Sith. On the one hand you have both Master and Apprentice trying to kill each other constantly, and on the other hand, they can also focus on destroying the Jedi.

This is also why I like Darth Sideous so much and why I loath his apprentices. Sideous could use (and consequently manipulate and distract) his apprentices to cement his power base. The apprentices should have been contemplating how to kill Sideous in his sleep in order to become the master rather than doing his dirty work. But instead Sideous insured that he would never be challenged by his apprentices.

Then there is Vader. *sigh* Vader as much as I hate to say it, wasn't a very good Sith. He knew enough about the Sith to know that he was supposed to eventually kill Sideous, but he never even attempted it in the time he was the apprentice. Just so you know, I don't count The Force Unleashed as canon because the attempt at overthrowing Sideous was just despicable from a story point of view. In my opinion, the entire game was just a half-assed attempt at shoring up this (albeit minor) plot hole.

I want to talk about special exceptions in the Sith (Revan, Kreia, and Nihilus), but I already have a wall of text to being with, so I think I'll save THAT wall of text for some other day.

Anyway, what does anyone else think? Any flaws you can percieve? Anything not clear? I'd be happy to elaborate even more.

 

[Johnny Xtreme]

I don't actually think Vader ever really considered himself a sith. A fallen jedi maybe, but a sith no.

 

[matrix3509]

Personally I think you're seeing the Virgin Mary on toast here, but hey, it's better then some theories I've heard.

Heh yeah, as I said, this is purely for fun, its kind of interesting to come up with these kinds of intricacies.

I don't actually think Vader ever really considered himself a sith. A fallen jedi maybe, but a sith no.

This is where the prequels come in, and hence why so many fans hate them. Lucas essentially turned one of the most badass villians of all time, into a whiny emo kid that doesn't really know how to be evil. But that's neither here nor there. I hope this thread doesn't become some massive Lucas hating thing cause thats already been done.

 

[Johnny Xtreme]

Can't deny that. Darth vader ended up being a whiny little ***** with a really really high midochlorian count. I tend to pretend like I didn't see the prequels sometimes.

On a different note, sometimes powerful jedi and sith have the ability to see into the future, or at least some clairevoyence. Darth Sideous didn't even seem to see his death coming. Also the greatest mastermind of the entire star wars universe did not think that murder darth vaders son would cause any problems. Seems fishy to me.

 

[matrix3509]

The clairvoyence thing is true. However the Force is apparently a fickle ***** when it comes to giving visions and they are more likely to be misinterpreted than not. A good example of that would be that I bet Anakin didn't even think that HE of all people would be the cause of Padme's death.

Sideous wanted Luke to join him, given the rule of two, he wanted Luke to kill his own father, that can be traced back to a simple case of underestimating the Light Side of the force, something that most Sith seem to do, tragically. Just goes to show you, you can't plan for every eventuality.

 

[Johnny Xtreme]

I'd actually be interested in hearing what you have to say about the sith from the kotor era. Kreia, Revan, and Nihilus.

 

[Marv21]

I thought the Force Unleashed was fine, because Darth Vader taught his "son" everything he knew somewhat out of compassion, so he wouldn't seek to betray him.

But you point seems to the point and well thought out, the idea of perpectual decline is a strong one through many many other works. But you never fully explained the rule of 2, also I believe that the sith are self destructive, while the jedi are self-destructive in nature. Both destroy the foundations of each other basis because both of their teachings are wrong.

Sith are wrong
1. They are to nhilistic to cement a strong enought empire
2. They have to much emotion, which leads to their self-destruction
3. Not a strong enough trust base for a master to have over his aprentice, for the master to teach everything he knows and to teach another. If they interchanged a new master with aprentice it would be alot like the Jedis, except the teachings of the darker arts.
4. Lack of knowledge of greator teachings.

Jedi are wrong
1. They can create order, but they lack the power to mantain it.
2. Refusal to use emotions, in their ideas emotion leads to the dark side, this is because the jedi have never used their emotions until this point making them explode.
3.Refusal to learn the dark arts, or even acknowledge their teachings to be somewhat legitamite, leading to the hunger of knowledge, and draw of the Sith teachings.


They are each wrong, however they need each other in order to simulate the fight between good and evil, and I mean good and evil because they are both words...point of views.

In my opinion the Sith are closer to the path of the absolute teaching then the Jedi.

If the Jedi die out, the sith war with each other.
If the Sith die out, their is a conflicts between each other.

2 sides of a coin is what they are.

 

[mnimmny]

I figured that Vader's plan to overthrow the Sideous really consisted of getting Luke to join him.

But then again, I figured the rule of two's purpose was to keep the sith in hiding by necessity against a more pervasive jedi presence. Yes it resulted in stronger sith, but that was because they really couldn't afford anything weaker. And Palpatine, i think, illustrated that while it was a rule of two that didn't mean he couldn't play around with a horde of force powered underlings ala emperor's hands or whatnot. though the majority of evidence for that comes after he crushes the Jedi.

However, i do think the original point that successive generations of sith were weaker was interesting primarily because it seems that all the exceptionally strong sith were dark jedi (Exar Kun, Ulic Qel-Droma, Revin, Darth Vader, Dooku, etc. Palpatine (if he in his unfleshed out background is pure sith) is an outlier.

 

[tront]

Darth Cadeus forever. That theory of the sith is superior. Read legacy of the force and you will understand.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Technology>Mystical crap.


There is no issue that can not be solved by the correct application of orbital bombardment. I take the offical Imperial line- the force is a pointless, elitist tool that gives too much power to people. And will be eventually destroyed by my firepower.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Um...Star Wars is based on Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces. They did TV interviews with him after the movies became popular, it's a mono-myth structure.

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/myth.html

 

[matrix3509]

I thought the Force Unleashed was fine, because Darth Vader taught his "son" everything he knew somewhat out of compassion, so he wouldn't seek to betray him.

But you point seems to the point and well thought out, the idea of perpectual decline is a strong one through many many other works. But you never fully explained the rule of 2, also I believe that the sith are self destructive, while the jedi are self-destructive in nature. Both destroy the foundations of each other basis because both of their teachings are wrong.

Sith are wrong
1. They are to nhilistic to cement a strong enought empire
2. They have to much emotion, which leads to their self-destruction
3. Not a strong enough trust base for a master to have over his aprentice, for the master to teach everything he knows and to teach another. If they interchanged a new master with aprentice it would be alot like the Jedis, except the teachings of the darker arts.
4. Lack of knowledge of greator teachings.

Jedi are wrong
1. They can create order, but they lack the power to mantain it.
2. Refusal to use emotions, in their ideas emotion leads to the dark side, this is because the jedi have never used their emotions until this point making them explode.
3.Refusal to learn the dark arts, or even acknowledge their teachings to be somewhat legitamite, leading to the hunger of knowledge, and draw of the Sith teachings.


They are each wrong, however they need each other in order to simulate the fight between good and evil, and I mean good and evil because they are both words...point of views.

In my opinion the Sith are closer to the path of the absolute teaching then the Jedi.

If the Jedi die out, the sith war with each other.
If the Sith die out, their is a conflicts between each other.

2 sides of a coin is what they are.

Thats part of what I hated about The Force Unleashed. I was under the impression that throughout Vader's apprentice's training, he was constantly tortured. This doesn't fit in with Vader's prequel demeanor at all. The point of TFU, in my opinion was to try to explain how and why Vader went from a whiny ***** to a badass, and to shore up the minor plot hole of why Vader remained a puppet of Sideous for thirty some-odd years. Instead the game did neither. I would have rather the game had os play as Vader himself for the entire game, bbut instead they gave of some half-baked protagonist that I didn't care about and indeed will never hear about again. Seriously, the protagonist was about as disposable as you can get. Why couldn't the game be about Vader instead and show us a (believable) transition from whiner to badass?

It is not the way of the Sith to teach everything the master knows to his/her apprentice. The reason for this is that the master is trying to hold on to power, and he knows that the apprentice is trying to take it away. Teaching the apprentice everything the master knows whould only make it easier for the apprentice to kill the master. Therefore the apprentice needs to learn things on his own, so as to become more independent, thereby making him stronger. Like I said, the Sith are only self-destructive if there are more than two of them. If the master manages distract and trick his apprentice enough, the apprentice will die, thereby making sure an unworthy apprentice doesn't become a master. But if the apprentice succeeds in killing his master, then the process starts again. Its this dynamic that interests me.

 

[Rock Avich]

NERDS AHOY!

...

Sorry.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I can see what you're saying. The sith that really interest me are Kreia and Revan, for various reasons. Revan, mainly because he tried to take out the Republic in order to save it, rather than going dark for power. By the way, do you think that the force from outside the galaxy that revan went to fight were the Yuuzhan Vong? (I probably butchered the spelling)

 

[matrix3509]

I figured that Vader's plan to overthrow the Sideous really consisted of getting Luke to join him.

But then again, I figured the rule of two's purpose was to keep the sith in hiding by necessity against a more pervasive jedi presence. Yes it resulted in stronger sith, but that was because they really couldn't afford anything weaker. And Palpatine, i think, illustrated that while it was a rule of two that didn't mean he couldn't play around with a horde of force powered underlings ala emperor's hands or whatnot. though the majority of evidence for that comes after he crushes the Jedi.

However, i do think the original point that successive generations of sith were weaker was interesting primarily because it seems that all the exceptionally strong sith were dark jedi (Exar Kun, Ulic Qel-Droma, Revin, Darth Vader, Dooku, etc. Palpatine (if he in his unfleshed out background is pure sith) is an outlier.

That was my point. The rule of two, was specifally designed to prevent the complete destruction of the Sith. It worked amazingly well for the most part because it allowed the Sith to practice their own teachings to the fullest, with out all the in-fighting, that weakened them.

I remember a quote from KOTOR that I will share:

"Without strife, victory has no meaning. Without strife, you cannot advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation."

Its interesting that this quote was made at a time when the Sith empire was huge. What was said is true, to a point. Its only true when said strife is against the Sith's enemies. When the strife is directed inward, at your own kind, it has the opposite effect.

The reason Sideous was so successful was because he kept specific teachings out of the hands of his apprentices. These teaching were the key to keeping them subservient. It also helped that he was a super strong Sith, stronger than even Yoda (apparently). After the Jedi purge, Sideous believed he didn't need to abide by the rule of two because there were no Jedi left that could threaten him, as the Jedi he didn't kill, he viewed as too afraid to face him.

 

[matrix3509]

I can see what you're saying. The sith that really interest me are Kreia and Revan, for various reasons. Revan, mainly because he tried to take out the Republic in order to save it, rather than going dark for power. By the way, do you think that the force from outside the galaxy that revan went to fight were the Yuuzhan Vong? (I probably butchered the spelling)

Herein, lies why I love KOTOR and KOTOR 2 so much, despite the latter being so unfinished. The only typical Sith in the entire group was Malak, and he was a clueless dolt who didn't deserve to lead the Sith. The games actually takes the time to point out how clueless he really was.

Revan somehow sensed the Trayus Acadamy on Malachor before the battle started. When he went there and discovered what it was, he knew he couldn't let anyone else discover it. Being the expert tactician he was, he decided to take out both the Mandalorians and the Academy in one fell swoop. Thats the only reason I can think of for why the final battle was in such a far corner of the galaxy.

Anyway, I think he must have felt the presence of the true Sith from the Academy, and once the planet was destroyed, he took his fleet and went looking for a way to stop the true Sith. At some point he discovered the Star Forge, and he realized that at the state the republic was in, they would never survive the (apparently imminent) true Sith invasion. He knew what he had to do, but I refuse to believe that he actually went to the dark side. Sure he may have killed Jedi, but he was never shown to have any of the characteristic traits of the Sith. He simply knew what he had to do.

It was pretty obvious that Revan knew what he was doing before the events of KOTOR. He specifically spared the infrastructure of the planets he conqured, as he would need it when the true Sith invaded. This is directly contrasted by Malak's over zealous desire to destroy things. He completely destroyed the infrastructure of Taris, a potential goldmine worth of income, not even to mention Telos. He also used HK-47 to great effect. HK-47 was also highly uncharacteristic of most Sith, most of whom didn't understand subtlety. But the use of an assassin droid made pretty good sense. After all, why destroy a revolting planet, whose resources you might need later on, when you can silently kill destabilizing influence and take the entire planet without much of a fuss?

Anyway, I'll post more later.

 

[matrix3509]

Also, I doubt Revan was sensing about the Yuuzhan Vong, because they had been stripped of the Force when Yuuzhan'tar (homeworld) was destroyed, which happened an unimaginable amount of years before this.

I am more inclined to think that the True Sith reside in the Unknown Regions, silently keeping tabs on the rest of the Galaxy. This would really help the true Sith have at least some connection to the rest of their order, because Ziost, Korriban, and Malachor are all planets along the periphery of the Unknown Regions and all of them have major significance to the Sith order. This would also explain why Nihilus spent so much time wandering the edges of the Unknown Regions, when he could have been out causing chaos in the Repbulic by consuming whole worlds. He most likely sensed a massive amount of force energy coming from there but he didn't know how to get to it.

 

[eels05]

Um...Star Wars is based on Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces. They did TV interviews with him after the movies became popular, it's a mono-myth structure.

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/myth.html

Wow that OP..
Its amazing how many Star Wars fans haven't heard of Joseph Campbell.The guy was a walking talking fountain of wisdom.

All Stars Wars nerds need to track down Bill Moyers series of interviews with the guy.