Jedi Academy: Tython

[Obese Wan Kenobese]

I know of examples where love and attachment lead to the dark side, but not examples where happy is used for the dark side or light side. The reason I say 'emotions' is because of the Sith code and the Jedi code. "There is no emotion, there is peace." vs "Through passion, I gain strength." I'm going more by Heir to the Jedi and Knights of the Old Republic.

Looking strictly at the original trilogy, we see how Luke's attachment to his friends caused him to risk much in Empire Strikes Back, while he didn't manage to save anyone. We see how the Emperor tried to use that attachment to create fear of losing them to push Luke to the dark side. But, if Luke had not gone after his friends and not led the group to save Han in Return of the Jedi, how could we see him as a hero? The Jedi can be happy, but they must see the big picture. It is not a self centered happiness. But, one could argue that the Jedi of the prequels are guilty of being fooled. Whether we call this the imbalance the Je'ddai feared or the dark side's manipulation may be up for interpretation. I think the line walked in the films, which makes it so iconic, is that it is meant to make the audience struggle to understand, just as real moral decisions are not so easy. We all want Luke to strike the Emperor down. Yet, for Luke to do this in anger would make him like the Emperor. We are able to see Luke as less tarnished, while still celebrating as Vader kills the Emperor, which simultaneously restores Vader to the light side, while he does what would've been a dark side act. Perhaps this is Vader finding the balance of the chosen one. Doing what must be done for peace, not to rule but to destroy evil in order to save others. In that scene, there is redemption of the impure, purity in self sacrifice, and defeating evil.

[Obese Wan Kenobese]

The Emperor just kept saying "your anger...your hatred..." The Emperor may have been happy while yelling "Unlimited power!" and laughing when zapping people with lightning. So, perhaps the key to force lightning is a selfish sort of happiness.  

[Darth Justicar]

I know of examples where love and attachment lead to the dark side, but not examples where happy is used for the dark side or light side. The reason I say 'emotions' is because of the Sith code and the Jedi code. "There is no emotion, there is peace." vs "Through passion, I gain strength." I'm going more by Heir to the Jedi and Knights of the Old Republic.

Looking strictly at the original trilogy, we see how Luke's attachment to his friends caused him to risk much in Empire Strikes Back, while he didn't manage to save anyone. We see how the Emperor tried to use that attachment to create fear of losing them to push Luke to the dark side. But, if Luke had not gone after his friends and not led the group to save Han in Return of the Jedi, how could we see him as a hero? The Jedi can be happy, but they must see the big picture. It is not a self centered happiness. But, one could argue that the Jedi of the prequels are guilty of being fooled. Whether we call this the imbalance the Je'ddai feared or the dark side's manipulation may be up for interpretation. I think the line walked in the films, which makes it so iconic, is that it is meant to make the audience struggle to understand, just as real moral decisions are not so easy. We all want Luke to strike the Emperor down. Yet, for Luke to do this in anger would make him like the Emperor. We are able to see Luke as less tarnished, while still celebrating as Vader kills the Emperor, which simultaneously restores Vader to the light side, while he does what would've been a dark side act. Perhaps this is Vader finding the balance of the chosen one. Doing what must be done for peace, not to rule but to destroy evil in order to save others. In that scene, there is redemption of the impure, purity in self sacrifice, and defeating evil.

The thing is, I see Luke as exposing Yoda's fallacy...whereby repression ends up creating the fall by stigmatizing the emotions and attachments.

I just hope to heck Luke didn't somehow end up trying the "Yoda technique" on Ben.  If he did, well, let's just say I do not think that was what would have helped Ben fight his demons.

[Obese Wan Kenobese]

The signature I have here gives my take on the Jedi code. Plus a little Jedi/Sith logic teaser.

The nature of anger does not make it a good tool, as anger dominates us. It is a temptation. But, anger serves a purpose. I have a lot of anger. I start from a good place with good intentions and become angry at what I perceive as injustice. Anger has a function in a person as a motivation, but it does not make one stronger. It makes one feel stronger. It makes one certain in one's self and one's strength, but it must be understood in order to make right decisions, or it blinds us. Arguably, anger is not called upon, but rather anger pushes us to act. Anger and sadness are similar in many ways. Anger is what we feel when we are unhappy with things and fight to change them. Sadness is what we feel when we are unhappy with things and don't believe we can change them. Fear is when we think things will become or remain what we are unhappy with. If we use anger for motivation, what motivation have we missed while reveling in our anger? What solutions to our problem have we missed while trying to force people or things to our will?

For 900 years, Yoda had experiences and witnessed Jedi succeed and fail. In that time, he trained Dooku, who fell. He trained Qui Gon, who died and never quite finished training Obi Wan, who trained Anakin, who Yoda didn't want trained. Anakin killed Dooku, replacing him to receive training from Palpatine. Yoda failed to stop Palpatine and ran. Anakin's forbidden son, Luke, was trained by Obi Wan, then Yoda, who didn't want to train him. Luke converted Anakin, who killed Palpatine. Somewhere in there, no code is absolutely fitting when applied absolutely.

I was always confused why Luke couldn't let go his anger, but kill the Emperor anyway to save people. Instead of throwing his saber away, after cutting off Vader's hand, why not kill the Emperor then? Just do it for the right reason. I feel that moment in the story was about placing a higher goal above our desires. An ideal.

Heir to the Jedi makes it seem as if force capable people have an added temptation involved with anger. Imagine you could use some extra part of your brain, but it made you potentially psychotic. The Jedi code is like a protection against the risks inherent to using the force. Leia is very angry, but she's untrained, though force capable. She figuratively burns holes in peoples heads with her eyes now. Imagine if she got training and could actually do it.

[Darth Logos]

After reading Heir to the Jedi (SPOILERS!!!), where Luke teaches himself moving things with the force, I think it's like muscle memory. While the Sith use emotion to tap in to the force, as Luke experiences and describes some what in HTTJ, Jedi use focus. Sith let their emotions give them outward control, and emotions eventually control them. Jedi develop self control, and focus taps in to the force. The more the Sith use emotion, the more emotions become volatile and rise up faster. The more a Jedi practices focus, the faster and deeper they are able to. Luke moves rocks and is exhausted. He is over exerted attempting his x wing. That may simply be because he, or some part of him, still believes it is different. That's why he failed. That's why he is breathing heavy. In HTTJ, he moved noodles and a spoon. That is air he is breathing, and there is a spoon, but do you think it was some exertion on Luke's body? Did it require his muscles to lift the spoon? He thought it did. A character in the book suggests Luke doesn't lift the spoon with his mind. Luke moves the force, and the force moves the spoon.

I don't buy into this whole "Sith rely on their emotions" bit. I do think that they draw on their emotions to add strength to their Force abilities, but in instances where a basic Force application is used is it really necessary to draw upon the Dark Side specifically. For instance, drawing a lightsaber into your hand.

The Emperor just kept saying "your anger...your hatred..." The Emperor may have been happy while yelling "Unlimited power!" and laughing when zapping people with lightning. So, perhaps the key to force lightning is a selfish sort of happiness.   

The concept of Sith Lightning has been explained to me as a manifestation of one's hatred. And honestly, who doesn't take a little satisfaction from smiting one's hated enemy? But there have also been cases when Jedi have produced green lightning. Supposedly being a manifestation of justice (blah blah blah). Is one's hatred of evil any less hateful than the hatred of a person? Hate is hate, and haters gonna hate.

The thing is, I see Luke as exposing Yoda's fallacy...whereby repression ends up creating the fall by stigmatizing the emotions and attachments.

I just hope to heck Luke didn't somehow end up trying the "Yoda technique" on Ben.  If he did, well, let's just say I do not think that was what would have helped Ben fight his demons.

I believe Luke may have been the foretold "balance to the Force." Vader was the catalyst to eradicate both the Jedi and the Sith, leaving Luke in somewhat of a Grey area. He doesn't follow the Dark side, but he also doesn't suppress his emotions. But considering all the goof ball stuff they threw into TFA, who knows how they are going to spin Luke.

The nature of anger does not make it a good tool, as anger dominates us.

Any weapon is merely a tool. A sword can be used to defend just as capably as it is used to attack. If one is not qualified to use such a tool, then untold damage can be wrought. I think you are confusing anger with rage. Rage is blinding, and uncontrollable. Anger most certainly makes one stronger. It generates adrenaline, which then causes you to focus on your objective.

I was always confused why Luke couldn't let go his anger, but kill the Emperor anyway to save people. Instead of throwing his saber away, after cutting off Vader's hand, why not kill the Emperor then? Just do it for the right reason. I feel that moment in the story was about placing a higher goal above our desires. An ideal.

I think Luke was a bit clueless as to the extent of the Emperor's power. If he were at a point when he could sense the Force within people, he would've have been able to tell that Leia was Force sensitive as well, without the powwow with Obi-wan.

[Darth Logos]

Defence it is. It's an act when you throw your lightsaber to remove the fence between you and someone else you would like to connect with. De-fencing was a common symbolic way to break through that psychological barrier between the true jedi and the muppetized clones after Order 66.

Can someone help settle this argument?

[Obese Wan Kenobese]

Throwing our sabers will risk damaging them and void the warranty, I think.

We see examples in the stories, games and films of Jedi and Sith throwing sabers with the force.

If the argument is about defense, it's spelled with an s.

If it's about Yoda's statement "never for attack", Yoda is attempting to convey Jedi theory, goals and intentions. As seen in story lines time and again, anger has an influence on one's use of the force that becomes tempting and clouds one's mind, as seen when Anakin turns on the very woman he loved enough to kill younglings. One could surmise that Yoda wants Luke to use the force for defense, and never use anger and aggression with the force, as that would tempt Luke toward the dark side like his father before him. I suspect Yoda is being extra restrictive/cautious to protect Luke from temptation.

There is no claim that even Yoda represents perfection. Semantics without context will make things more confusing. Are you trying to understand the story or argue with it? You try putting 900 years of understanding into several irrefutable sentences for a puppet.

[Landen Se-Sentien]

Or, think of it as a cornerstone of any martial arts program/style. It is used ti defend yourself, but never to initiate the attack. It's implied in Yoda's statement, but it's easily understood and accepted by the practitioners. After all, the point in training to whoop some tail, if you're just going to take a beating, roll over, and die? Think of Mr. Miyagi and his teachings to Daniel, "This not tournament. This for real." He's telling him that if he doesn't fight well, he's going to die. Fighting well includes offense, too.

As far as Yoda's actions go, think of all the times we saw him fight or draw his saber in the movies. Against Dooku, he absorbed, repelled, and prevented all of his Force attacks before mounting his own offensive. Against the clone troopers on Kashyyyk, he drew his saber after sensing both the death of thousands of jedi and the clones drawing their weapons first. Against the clones at the temple, he had to fight his way in. While we don't see the initation of the fight, it's safe to say he felt threatened and acted accordingly, considering there were so many troops standing guard. Not to mention, he was trying to save what was left of the Order. Finally, against Sidious, his actions mirrored those of his fight against Dooku.

In what we see of him, in the movies at least, he lived up to the ideals he taught.

To say he was a liar for attacking those who attacked him first is not only unfair, it's entirely inaccurate. I'm not saying there weren't failures among jedi concerning the idea of "defense, never attack," because they are fallible beings after all (think of Luke in the cave, or on the Death Star), but they can attack after being attacked without violating the philosophy.

[Darth Logos]

My question lies in that he preaches that a Jedi never uses the Force for "attack". Not that they aren't allowed to attack. But I would assume that this philosophy would be a restriction of how they are allowed to attack.

Saber throws (or senate balconies )
Blaster deflection back to the source
Even the Force augmented movements of styles like Ataru.

Would classify as using the Force to attack, regardless of who struck first.

But when in the case of Yoda versus Dooku, yes Yoda deflected the lightning away, or absorbed it. But I seem to recall Yoda reflecting at least one blast back at Dooku. Unless using an opponent's attack against him does not count as an actual attack.

[Landen Se-Sentien]

My question lies in that he preaches that a Jedi never uses the Force for "attack". Not that they aren't allowed to attack. But I would assume that this philosophy would be a restriction of how they are allowed to attack.

Saber throws (or senate balconies )
Blaster deflection back to the source
Even the Force augmented movements of styles like Ataru.

Would classify as using the Force to attack, regardless of who struck first.

But when in the case of Yoda versus Dooku, yes Yoda deflected the lightning away, or absorbed it. But I seem to recall Yoda reflecting at least one blast back at Dooku. Unless using an opponent's attack against him does not count as an actual attack.

Again, go back to my original point of not using it to initiate the attack. That's something that is drilled into anyone who studies a quality martial arts program. If he were to initiate the attack, then he risks falling to the dark side. Early on, this point would probably be explained at sufficient depth for Luke to understand, but then a gentle reminder of, "...never for attack," is all the student needs at that point in the training. I mean, if the jedi couldn't use the Force for attack, in the strictest sense that you refer to, they couldn't even attack with a lightsaber in any way, could they?

[Vivectius]

My question lies in that he preaches that a Jedi never uses the Force for "attack". Not that they aren't allowed to attack. But I would assume that this philosophy would be a restriction of how they are allowed to attack.

Saber throws (or senate balconies )
Blaster deflection back to the source
Even the Force augmented movements of styles like Ataru.

Would classify as using the Force to attack, regardless of who struck first.

But when in the case of Yoda versus Dooku, yes Yoda deflected the lightning away, or absorbed it. But I seem to recall Yoda reflecting at least one blast back at Dooku. Unless using an opponent's attack against him does not count as an actual attack.

Ask Noctis this question. 

[Darth Logos]

Again, go back to my original point of not using it to initiate the attack. That's something that is drilled into anyone who studies a quality martial arts program. If he were to initiate the attack, then he risks falling to the dark side. Early on, this point would probably be explained at sufficient depth for Luke to understand, but then a gentle reminder of, "...never for attack," is all the student needs at that point in the training. I mean, if the jedi couldn't use the Force for attack, in the strictest sense that you refer to, they couldn't even attack with a lightsaber in any way, could they?

I don't know...the whole thing just kind of rubs me wrong with the mind set that they are trying to portray the Jedi as having. Because if you use the Force to counter attack, that would, in essence, be relying on "quick & easy" power, which is often the result of fear. And we all know Yoda's take on fear.

[Landen Se-Sentien]

I don't know...the whole thing just kind of rubs me wrong with the mind set that they are trying to portray the Jedi as having. Because if you use the Force to counter attack, that would, in essence, be relying on "quick & easy" power, which is often the result of fear. And we all know Yoda's take on fear.

So then a boxer should fight with one hand tied behind his back? "For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." Why would they not use the Force in combat? Should they throw down their lightsabers, too? Should the stormtroopers not use their blasters? Should Navy SEALs use BB guns? Should Obi-Wan have just let go and not used the Force jump against Maul? When you fight for keeps, you use everything at your disposal, especially that which you have trained to use.

To say they are using it out of fear is a bit of a stretch. It could easily be used to level the playi g field when horribly outnumbered. It could be used to end a fight quickly. The last real fight I was in ended with a very quick armbar and wrist lock against the other guy, and I wasn't afraid. I just wanted to end it quickly, and I relied on my training and skill set, not fear, to do so.

I see that we're going to disagree all day on this, and that's fine. We just see it 2 different ways. Your way, and the right way. 

[Darth Logos]

So then a boxer should fight with one hand tied behind his back? "For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." Why would they not use the Force in combat? Should they throw down their lightsabers, too? Should the stormtroopers not use their blasters? Should Navy SEALs use BB guns? Should Obi-Wan have just let go and not used the Force jump against Maul? When you fight for keeps, you use everything at your disposal, especially that which you have trained to use.

To say they are using it out of fear is a bit of a stretch. It could easily be used to level the playing field when horribly outnumbered. It could be used to end a fight quickly. The last real fight I was in ended with a very quick armbar and wrist lock against the other guy, and I wasn't afraid. I just wanted to end it quickly, and I relied on my training and skill set, not fear, to do so.

I see that we're going to disagree all day on this, and that's fine. We just see it 2 different ways. Your way, and the right way. 

Wow this going way further than I had intended.

A) We're talking about Jedi ethos. Stormtroopers are bad guys. Seals aren't even part of that universe. And boxers are dogs; they fight with their mouths.

B) Yes Kenobi used the Force to propel himself over Maul and call the saber to him. But these are merely strategic advantages, not offensive. The attack came from his own strength and skill to swing a saber through his opponent. His Force skills were probably enough to activate and levitate the saber through Maul's back while it was turned, but he chose the high road to engage his enemy face to face.

My personal beliefs do not dictate that you are not allowed to use what weapons you possess in a fight. I.E. If the US truly wanted to end ISIS, we have a nuclear stock pile that we've been sitting on since the Cold War, and a fraction of it would be more than enough to turn ISIS-land into a sheet of glass. But doing so would label us "bad guys" in world society, even though we used our strength to "defend" our interests.

[Darth Logos]

Apologies if that last was a bit on the extreme.