Jedi Philosophy
I was discussing Star Wars episode III with my neighbor last night. It is a great movie by the way, and this time not only because... well it is Star Wars. He also loved the movie but was disappointed that there wasn't more cheesy dialogue and bad acting. In a way it did not live up to the Star Wars legacy.
Episode III did have a few gems of dialogue however. I particularly was amused by "only the Sith deal in absolutes". This line was the inspiration for the title of this blog. I find it amusing that the line is so obviously self-contradicting; this statement itself is an absolute statement. What I find less amusing is the sentiment portrayed by this statement. The implication is that the Jedi are moral relativists, existing in a space where good and bad don't really exist, while the Sith are intolerant polarizing zealots. This is an untenable perspective on many levels and for many reasons. Primarily, if absolutes are removed from the belief system, how can an argument against those that believe in absolutes even be framed? The best we can possible do is, "absolutists are... what they just are, because they can't possible be evil because evil doesn't exist." So, it turns out that the Sith are not evil and the dark side isn't really so dark but rather a different (not to be construed as inferior) shade of gray. Saying otherwise would be absolutism and would be... not really bad because there isn't such a thing; perhaps a violation of leftist code, which is somehow bad even though there isn't such a thing.
Nobody on earth really believes in the virtue of non-absolutes. The very act of such a person coming forth with such a belief would contradict the belief. Moral relativity arises, rather, as a negative reaction to those who seem overly willing to assert their specific beliefs on others. Nobody is an island, and so to some degree we all do this, but the specific leftist reaction I refer to is a broad reaction to various perceived injustices. For example, the unkind treatment of blacks and other groups of people by those who espouse strong beliefs has left many with a bad taste for strong beliefs.
Is having beliefs really to blame, or rather is it having the wrong beliefs? I think most of the time it is neither; rather it is simply weak character. Regardless of religion, most of us intuitively know good from evil (at least on really important matters), but to various degrees sometimes do things we know we shouldn't. From there, our ability to self-justify is astounding, often to the point of inventing and portraying obscure belief systems to match our actual actions. It is either this, or admit to ourselves and others that we are in the wrong and take the painful steps necessary to change. In this manner many have justified horrible actions while pointing to their invented beliefs saying, "I am not bad, I am acting in accordance with this, my belief system." For those outside of the lie, this is utterly repulsive (and for good reason). Unfortunately, however, this repulsion combined with discomfort with our own weaknesses, leads many of us to the belief that beliefs (absolutes) are... well... bad. Such a stance is not harmless though. If we do not acknowledge evil as evil, we cannot esteem or condemn anything! Any act is justified because there are no absolutes. In short, if we do not seek to find true virtue and vice, how can we possibly build a better or even sustainable society?!
At heart, the average liberal and conservative are the same. They wish to be happy and for others to be happy. Both recognize that such happiness is the fruit of love and kindness. As I mention, however, the left's attempt to remove right and wrong in reaction to those who self-justify in the name of righteousness, will only pull society down. On the other hand, those who hold public their absolute beliefs (usually conservatives) have an obligation to honest and humble devotion to truth, not justification.
Returning to Star Wars, everybody knows that the Jedi are good and the Sith are bad. This is not because the Sith have absolute beliefs and the Jedi do not, but because the Jedi beliefs are good and the Sith's are bad. All but the most numb who watch episode III will feel a sense of loss as Anakin steps away from happiness. It is natural to want good to win, unless we are uncomfortable with our own actions and wish to justify them.
posted by Nathan Allan at
9:43 AM
1 Comments:
Hello Nato,
One of these years we'll actually have another phone conversation. We'll talk guy stuff: balding, tatoos, gadgets. In the meantime, I felt like responding to a few points in your post about absolutes.
I beg pardon in advance: forgive me if I ramble.
From my perspective (you'll notice my non-absolute posture)"absolutes" are not to be equated with "beliefs" as you've equated them. When I say "I believe this or that to be the case" I'm implying (and expect you to infer) that I've arrived at a conclusion based on an analysis of the information I've been exposed to. I'm NOT implying that I've a)analyzed ALL the data or b)I can prove my analysis to be correct under ALL conditions. By contrast, an absolute (or true) statement demands both of those conditions to be met, although Truth exists, I suppose, independently from proof. Who, though, is utterly omniscient and can express that Truth? Many would say God, of course. Unfortunately, I'm unable to evaluate God's position on anything. His track record is complex and I lack omniscience. I would no sooner expect a 2 year-old baby to evaluate a thesis written by an astrophysics PhD than take upon myself the explanation and proof of God's opinion on a matter.
I'm certainly not a scientist by even the broadest definition, but what little I know of the scientific method I like. It allows for beliefs to be examined and readily discarded if the examination turns up contradictions that destroy the model. "Hey, we BELIEVED that cells were the smallest bit of matter but wait! My new super-duper microscope shows me there's something more! Whoa! Organelles! Molecules! Whoa! Atoms! Whoa! Electrons! Whoa! Muons or whateverthedevil they're called!"
Is it possible for a human being to speak with absolute knowledge of something? Literally, I think not. In practical, working terms, perhaps it's good enough to approximate. Is it an absolute that fire burns human flesh? At first glance, it would seem so. It's a useful belief. However, unless it was TV trickery and the eyewitnesses were lying, there are fire-walkers. Exceptions demote Truth to Belief. Is it an absolute that the sun will "come up?" Heck, it doesn't even "come up" now, we just spin around to see it (so the astronomers tell us, but hey, who knows) and if we can model the death of our sun from the deaths of other stars I reckon ol Sol one fine day, just might not wake the rooster. Having expressed that view, I'm banking on the rise of the sun tomorrow. But it's not an absolute certainty. It wasn't so long ago that some really smart Europeans said the Earth was flat, and that's that.
"I think so," "conviction," "belief" all have similar meanings of course. I feel that they allow for the possibility, however remote, that our stance is erroneous. Some religious folks call that being "teachable." Now, it's important to ask if a belief has enough merit to bring us happiness, even a belief in what may be an absolute falsehood.
I reckon. Millions of folks every day seem to find meaning and happiness, and their belief systems don't align well with those of their neighbors. In fact, they clash. The conflict is justified, though, in the minds of the grapplers, because, Gosh Dangit, they know the Truth.
Does that mean I won't stand up for something? No, but I won't claim to know absolutely if I'm in the right. It's a best-guess kind of thing, weighted with a risk analysis and return-on-investment strategy. Someone threatens my family I'll box their ears if necessary because I like to think my kids are innocent and don't deserve to be injured, nothing is more valuable to me than those relationships and if I'm able to preserve their safety we'll get a chance to be happy in the future even if it leaves the foe face-down in the street.
If I understand your perspective correctly, you feel that it's critical to the well-being of society that folks adopt an absolute stance. Based on my own experiences so far, I don't see how it's possible to do so (much less "enforce.") without denouncing other decent humans by default. Many, many hurtful actions that destroy societies have been done in the name of "Truth." Witch hunts against herbalists and left-handers, Moslems, Christians, Jews, Women, Blacks, Seal Hunters all going at it because they felt they knew the absolute Truth. At least those are my suspicions; I don't know what their thinking was, but historians seem to conclude that their clash of "truth" led to fisticuffs.
Oh, there's more to blab on about but I reckon I'm done for now. We'll pick this up in the future, no?
Take care Gomer,
Kevn
By
Kevn Lambson: Mammal, at 2:37 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home