Poll: Jedi or Sith Philosophy: Who is right?

[Shock and Awe]

Only Sith think in absolutes....

Seriously though; Jedi if I had to choose. They're both terribly flawed, but Jedi at least seem more moral overall.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

In case it's not obvious at this point, let me spell it out. The dark side is space crack. That is why the Sith are absolute idiots, that is why they constantly sabotage themselves through compulsive displays of petty, mindless evil. That is why they can't work together or accomplish any lasting goals. That is why their interesting philosophy essentially boils down to being angry all the time, because they aren't in the driving seat any more. The dark side is in the driving seat. They go where it wants, they do what it wants, they feel what it wants. They're the broken shells of human beings being driven around by their addiction.

Does that make Charlie Sheen a sith?

 

[conmag9]

Kidnapping children from their families?

People keep mentioning this, and it's inaccurate. The Jedi do not kidnap children, they take infants that tests show to be Force Sensitive and ask their parents if they want them to train to be Jedi, and if the parents say yes they can take them, if no they can't, and that's the end of it.

I'm taking this directly from that one IC Jedi Handbook which claims that they don't "kidnap" in the technical sense (ie. consent is granted by the universe by virtue of the kid being force sensitive). They say that people are wrong for calling them kidnappers, but that's exactly what they are.

During the era that book is set, at any rate. Luke Skywalker made it very clear in the scribbled commentary that he thought that was disgusting and would only allow it if the individual was able to make their own choices. So while in some eras the Jedi might be voluntary, in others they absolutely were not.

 

[bdeamon]

The sith approve slavery. I'm not saying that every sith is cool with slavery, but I usually side with the guys against slavery.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Star Wars isn't exactly all about grey and grey morality, the sith are clearly evil and the jedi clearly good, even if a bit zealous. Sure, the jedi are pretty quick to anger and have a pretty impressive body count for being "peacekeepers" but that is more a symptom of being characters in an action/scifi movie rather than something being implied about their moral code.

Come to think of it, do the sith actually even exist in the films or are they just a product of the games and such? I don't seem to recall Darth Vader, the emperor, et al, being referred to as Sith, rather than just being rogue jedi.

The are called Sith a few times in the original movies, and hundreds of times in the Prequels.

Can you source this, or say what parts of the OT movies they mention the word "Sith"? Because in all the times I've rewatched the OT I've never heard them mention the Sith.

 

[Aerosteam]

I'll take the side that doesn't have the "Chosen One" bullshit.

 

[DoPo]

In case it's not obvious at this point, let me spell it out. The dark side is space crack. That is why the Sith are absolute idiots, that is why they constantly sabotage themselves through compulsive displays of petty, mindless evil. That is why they can't work together or accomplish any lasting goals. That is why their interesting philosophy essentially boils down to being angry all the time, because they aren't in the driving seat any more. The dark side is in the driving seat. They go where it wants, they do what it wants, they feel what it wants. They're the broken shells of human beings being driven around by their addiction.

Does that make Charlie Sheen a sith?

Yes. But I think you mispelled that word.

/joke

 

[SonicMTD]

I would chose both, like how Luke did at the end of Return of The Jedi: He got angry, channeled his anger to win but did not succumb to it.

(side note: I also suspect this path would explain why in Return his lightsaber is green as opposed the blue we've all seen)

If I can't learn from both to find the middle option, then I'd rather ask Han if he needs a third when going on smuggling runs.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I would chose both, like how Luke did at the end of Return of The Jedi: He got angry, channeled his anger to win but did not succumb to it.

(side note: I also suspect this path would explain why in Return his lightsaber is green as opposed the blue we've all seen)

If I can't learn from both to find the middle option, then I'd rather ask Han if he needs a third when going on smuggling runs.

In relation to your side note. Luke's first lightsaber was lost when he battled Darth Vader in the bowels of Cloud City, ironically the lightsaber he lost used to be Anikin's. Luke's second lightsaber he made him self between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. He had to forge a artificial crystal for it, thus infusing it with his own influence. When a dark sider forges a crystal it comes out red generally. When light siders do it will come out green or blue usually. Anyways Anikin's lightsaber's crystal was provided by the Jedi Order, but his next lightsaber had a was one he created after he became Darth Vader. Crystals imbued withe the force naturally turn an array of various colors depending on the alignment of the people on the planet, and major events. But any crystal can be infused with the force to focus the particle beam blade, those crystals of course remain their natural color, and the color of the crystal determines the color of the blade.

Ah getting my ubernerd on is fun. Of course this is essentially mostly legends now, except for the parts relating directly to the Skywalker's.

 

[maninahat]

It depends what you mean by Jedi and sith philosophy, seeing as how it is maddeningly inconsistent from movie to movie. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" says one Jedi. "But from my perspective, you are the ones who are evil!" says a Sith. So are Sith relativists or absolutists?

The old movie jedis emphasized a kind of mindfulness in which you are aware and in control of your emotions. This is in contrast to the Sith, who rely on the power of emotion to get things done. The former stoicism gives you the advantage of a clear head and temperance. The latter gives you strength. A lot of what Yoda says is specifically contradictory ("there is no try"). You try to do lots of things Yoda, you nitwit. The old movies ruin the Jedi concept of stoicism by making into fucking robots who think any kind of passion is a bad thing.

 

[sumanoskae]

To be fair, they've already stated that unless something in the newly official material outright contradicts it the Legends canon is as much canon as the movies are.

Really? I did not hear of this. This is good news!. I suspected something like this might happen. May I ask where you heard this?

As for both Orders, their fundamental problem is that they are both a religion, and like all religions tries to fit the world to their views, rather than their views to the world. Neither side is truly interested in actually modifying their Codes to become better at understanding themselves and The Force, instead they try to drive themselves and The Force to fit into what that Code dictates, this is why neither is able or wants to fix the rather glaring flaws that only those who don't belong to either Order can very plainly see are there.

I would essentially agree. I think their constant fighting has been the source of their dogmatism. Any culture that is at war long enough will develop an inflated self image, as a defense mechanism.

But as I stated, I think the code of the Sith is a fine example of philosophy. It's how the Sith interpret their code that leads them into futility.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Neither. Both are sectarian mystics that end up dragging the rest of the galaxy into their conflicts, causing innumerable deaths and suffering while they fight their wars. I prefer what one ex-Jedi said (though that story has been retconned by Lucas and Disney both) that the best way to use the Force is NOT TO USE IT AT ALL.

 

[immortalfrieza]

To be fair, they've already stated that unless something in the newly official material outright contradicts it the Legends canon is as much canon as the movies are.

Really? I did not hear of this. This is good news!. I suspected something like this might happen. May I ask where you heard this?

I replied about that already. Specifically I don't really remember where I heard it though.

 

[zumbledum]

always thought it was a set up having them both be wrong so the whole balance to the force thing would have a real pay off but over time the story changed and it just sort of got dropped.

its all very much a take on zen bhudism or a take on a western interpretation of it anyway. i thought jedi's being there to serve or samurai was a little on the nose but its all good.

i dont think you need to be a particular genius overly well read to see the middle balance path.

 

[LetalisK]

Neither? They're both religious zealots. The Jedi are just less dicks about it. They're the Jehovah's Witness to the Sith's ISIS.

 

[God'sFist]

In the end it is about sacrifice. The Jedi sacrifice their feelings and attachments for peace while the Sith sacrifice their peace of mind and bodies for power to do as they please. I side with the dark in most cases in fiction because power comes at a price and that price has usually been fairly low cost in my opinion. The Jedi are prideful and arrogant and must be punished.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Neither. They were both flawed, short sighted, extremists. The Jedi were aloof arrogant dickheads who pretty much believed every emotion except aloof arrogance was evil and the Sith were Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains.

 

[Zeras]

I'd have to say the Jedi, only because they had the potential to have an Order being truly Grey, but instead changed it (I'm not sure why) from this:

Emotion, yet peace.
Ignorance, yet knowledge.
Passion, yet serenity.
Chaos, yet harmony.
Death, yet the Force.

To this series of absolutes, which directly flies in the face of reality:

There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.

The old Jedi were the real badasses; able to acknowledge their limitations as living beings yet strive for making themselves better.

 

[J Tyran]

I always wondered whether Anakin Skywalker "bringing balance to the force" is allowing the sith to get stronger after nearly getting wiped out, could be either a writing brilliance (in a pretty mediocre trilogy) or just a fan interpratation.

Anakin brings the force to balance by annihilating two morally corrupt systems, both the Sith and Jedi, and allowing all future force users to forge their own path.

As for the original question... it depends. If we're going only by the 100% canon sources, neither. Both the Jedi and Sith run on 100% inhuman bullshit. If we're going by EU standards (Notably KOTOR/SW:TOR, since they delve deeply into the subject), Sith. If you think about it, the Sith are only one leap away from reasonable - They're all about freedom, which is good. The one leap is that they think the only way to be truly free is to be the master of everything, or the master of as much as you can get your hands on. The idea that doing anything your not 100% comfortable with is 100% slavery seems to be the notion that pushed the Sith over the edge. Besides that, I can really get behind the Sith mindset.

They have other obnoxious traits like the way someone wanting to become a true Sith has to sacrifice/murder someone close to them to prove their commitment and as a symbolic "severing of ties", that right there is a red flag really.

How can anyone willing to do that ever really turn out well?