Does Sith have a political agenda?
Debate rages as to the degree to which George Lucas's anti-Nixon, anti-Dubyah political views color Revenge of the Sith.
Some, however, argue on the basis of individual lines of dialog in the Star Wars movies that The Empire is a metaphor for a managed economy and a collectivist dictatorship of the Left.
One line from Sith which I had forgotten- and which I think it was Glen of Territorial Bloggings who picked up on- was Yoda's silly remark that "Only Siths deal in absolutes." Actually- and rather patently- the "Siths" of history inhabit "the Dark Side" precisely because they reject absolutes- or at least wholesome ones, and at least for themselves!
Some, however, argue on the basis of individual lines of dialog in the Star Wars movies that The Empire is a metaphor for a managed economy and a collectivist dictatorship of the Left.
One line from Sith which I had forgotten- and which I think it was Glen of Territorial Bloggings who picked up on- was Yoda's silly remark that "Only Siths deal in absolutes." Actually- and rather patently- the "Siths" of history inhabit "the Dark Side" precisely because they reject absolutes- or at least wholesome ones, and at least for themselves!
Comments
If you're interested, I did a long post on that "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" nonsense over on "Beggars All."
I'm not a Republican. Go sell it somewhere else. Thanks for proving my point.
In other words, the Sith- like the Nazis- are the ultimate ethical relativists; the Jedi are the ultimate believers in absolutes. The whole conflict between Anakin and the Jedi throughout the series is just as we suggest. A coherent argument to the contrary would have strengthened your post quite a bit.
It seems a little strange that in claiming that we on our side of the ideological fence don't examine evidence, but rather stick with our own preconceived ideas, you don't do what every other participant in this
conversation has done: defend your position with reference to the movie we're discussing. Instead, you go of an a rather incoherent tangent about Saddam Hussein- one which makes the bizarre argument that once one supports a regime for geopolitical reasons, one is not free subsequently to oppose him when those circumstances change.
It's unfortunate that people of your persuasion have nothing but ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you to offer. If you could defend your own position instead of calling names and ascribing motives, it might be possible to engage you in conversation. But it seems a little odd that you who claim that your position is based on logic and reason and independent thought never are able to call upon them in defense of that position, but invariably fall back on name-calling and attacks on the motivation of your opponents.
Alas, it seems that the business about sticking to one's preconceived opinions in the face of conflicting evidence seems in your case to be an
example of something which Freud called "projection:" the ascription to others of one's own undesirable characteristics.
Actually, only projection explains a large percentage of the various ad hominem attacks which constitute the sum total of the Leftist argument on most things these days.
The Jedi are, in fact, not moral relativists, but moral realists. They follow a strict moral code but only among themselves. They do not run around forcing others to their ways or even clucking over all the evil that exists in nooks and crannies of all societies. Their motiviation is to maintain balance between good and evil (unfortunately, they don't seem to ever have much cause to go to work against excess good, nor are they ever likely to). So, in the end, they act only when things are seriously out of joint and then they act with regret. This is moral realism at its purest: to intentionally act against your better wishes because you believe you must to achieve a greater aim.
While we're on the topic of self-referential absurdity, Bob, you might read your own post and think about who is launching ad hominem attacks. Do two wrongs make a right in your world view?
Where on Earth- or any other planet- do you get the bizarre notion that the Jedia are Manicheans interested in maintaining "a balance between good and evil?" Wherever it is, it isn't the movies!
Moreover, an ad hominem argument is an attack on the person. Attacks on the argument don't count. And the issue is the line from the movie you have apparently chosen to disregard, but which forms the basis of this thread: "Only Siths deal in absolutes." What is not absolute is relative. It really isn't that hard.
I don't know where your apparently self-invented philosophy of "ethical realism" comes from, but it is neither especially coherent in itself, nor does it bear any relationship to either the Jedi ethic or anything in the movies.
Suggestion: see those films. Or if you've already seen them, see them again- and pay attention this time. And discuss them in terms of their substance, not in terms of some imaginary and essentially incoherent ethical philosophy you've invented!