Sunday, March 22, 2009

Star Wars…You asked for it

A. What about Star Wars would you like to know? B. On the other hand, what
could I tell you that you wouldn’t know already? C. Or are you asking for an
opinion about Star Wars? B-cause of B, I will A-sume that you do not mean A, so
it Ceems that you mean C. Because Ancient Greek Phil. usually wants a
moralization of some sort, he shall get it. Is Star Wars a good thing, and for
whom and under what conditions?
Before writing, I did some reading on Wikipedia. They classify Star Wars as a
“space opera,” meaning that it is a melodramatic, comic-book sort of story with
exaggerated technologically advanced forms of conflict. You could visit
Disciples of Diotima and read the article ‘Between the Charbidys and Scylla of
Emma and Godzilla’ to get my views on comic-books. You could also simply accept
it on my word that comic books are an excellent way to instill basic morality or
immorality into the minds of little boys and other people who are fortunately or
unfortunately like them.
And, in Star Wars, many of the basics of morality (and it’s very difficult to
capture all of them in one story) are presented excellently. Especially
calculated to indoctrinate virtues of valor, obedience, patience, patriotism,
distributism, and the like, while at the same time instilling a horror of
treachery, anger, hatred, over-mechanization, laziness, greed,
over-centralization, and injustice, the story definitely achieves this part of
the end of being a good story without directly such preaching such ideas. I
don’t think I need to give examples of such moral instillations; the very genere
covers some of them and the others are more or less obvious features of the
somewhat simple general plot. For the observer enamored of action, the lessons
will be swallowed along with the moves and the chicken in the Tatioone market.
But I don’t think that is really what you want to know. Of course there is
good and evil in Star Wars in a very general sense, and nobody would object to
their children or themselves learning it. In swallowing one virtue from Star
Wars, is there not the danger of swallowing other less good things contained in
it. This is art, not life; we can pull out the tares and not damage the wheat,
but if we harvest the wheat we might get tares too.
And the tare said to be contained in Star Wars is the religion/ethics of
relativistic pantheism. Is it really in Star Wars?
(Here follows a quick summary of relativistic pantheism. RP is the belief that
all things are not separate from the god. By definition, this includes the
denial of individual free will and the denial of good and evil. It is generally
the religious system of non-Christian religions, including Hinduism (which
substitutes desirable and undesirable fatalistic consequence-punishments for
good and evil), Taoism, and Buddhism (which substitutes passionlessness and
passion for good and evil). Star Wars seems to moderate the ethical
consequences this claim (more on this later) by positing two sides to the same
pantheistic deity, dark and light, much as Zorastriansim and Manicheanism posit
two equal gods, one good and one evil, without giving any real reason to follow
one god and not the other. By the way, the Christian justification of being
good and not evil is that evil does not exist except as a good thing deprived of
a quality it ought to have, thus making pursuit of actual evil not only
undesirable, but impossible.)
For Star Wars to in fact be a story in which one could swallow relativistic
pantheism along with virtue, worship or acknowledgement of such a deity has to
be portrayed as desirable (not good, as there is no “good” in relativistic
pantheistic metaphysics or ethics) and true (it could be portrayed as good but
not true, as the statement “Buddhists are often good people” does, or true but
not good, as Sartre portrays atheism in ’Nausea,’ but neither of these would be
dangerous for the Christian.). Now, I cannot remember whether or not the Force
is ever explicitly treated as a god in the films (I suspect that if it is, it is
by Yoda on Dagobah). Whether it is explicit or not is irrelevant for the
viewer, however. For the unaware viewer, if the Force is treated
non-explicitly as a god, they will swallow it anyway. Making the treatment
explicit would make the viewer aware and would render the series preachy, thus
weakening both the moral and the theological messages. For the aware viewer,
non-explicit treatment can still be seen as paganism (its subconscious influence
on the viewer is debatable), yet give the viewer freedom to imagine around the
non-explicit difficulties.
The most significant argument in favor of a non-explicit treatment of the Force
as a deity is in the jedi’s source of morality. Christians, as noted above,
treat good and evil as existence and its deprivation, thus goodness comes from
the Essence of God and evil comes from “nothing.” Whether or not Star Wars is
compatible with this system of morality is at best unclear. What is clear,
however, is that the main source of morality for all the characters is the
light-dark dualism of the Force. G.K. Chesterton says that the denial of
morality is allied with the exaltation of less-than-moral rules, such as manners
and conventions. By emphasizing the Force-conventional-code (for the light and
dark sides are not sufficient to determine good and evil under God, and thus
have only the status of laws/conventions/etc, not objective good and evil) and
ignoring the God-Morals, the jedi, whether or not they actually believe the
Force is god, are undermining God’s ethics and setting up The Force in God’s
ethical place. Obi-wan even goes so far as to say in Episode III, that “Only
the Sith deal in absolutes,” thus lending even more credence to the idea that
the jedI are pantheist-relativists (the Sith, in this system, would be seeking a
thoroughly evil version of what the JedI want to be mostly good.)
Another argument is the JedI’s use of eastern religious meditation techniques
that, in the real world, are related to demonic possession even though those who
practice them. There are other similarities to such eastern religions in Star
Wars, thus making the idea seem all the more true, if not explicit. And, though
all of this, the Star Wars characters posit no God in addition to the Force,
thus letting and even encouraging our religious impulses in our imagination add
the character of worship to the use of the Force. I think it is plain enough
that Star Wars can be dangerous to the morals of the viewer, especially the
uninformed viewer.
There are, however, three ways to counter this.

1. Be informed. I just informed you.
2. Do an implausible re-interpretation of Star Wars so that you can understand
it in a Christian way. I have done this, and I can show you that too. Later
3. Find a way in which Star Wars portrays the pantheistic system as
insufficient. An example would be a connection in the movies between the false
ethical/religious system and the fall of the Republic. This would make it
appear that no matter how pagan the jedI were, they end up being more or less
wrong, though honorable. I can try to do this, though I might have to watch the
movies again.

15 comments:

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

I REALLY like your description of the force. I never really paid attention to the treatment of "the good side", because it is woefully lacking in so much. However, I think that the portrayal of the dark side is an excelent comparasion to evil in our present lives; save for Obi-wan's quote maybe (I guess I didn't catch that).

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

And are you saying that it's good or bad to be passionless?

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

Good question about the passions. Here's the first step in finding the answer. Consider these two statements:

1. The news report was completely passionless.

2. He is completely passionless.

#1 is a compliment, I think, while #2 is not obviously so. What is different about the two statements that accounts for this difference in how we evaluate them?

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

You were supposed to answer my question, AGP (or whoever felt like it.) But since you didn't, I'll answer it myself, then pose a new question for you to answer.

The difference between the two is that the reporter denies passion because it is in conflict with another quality that it is more important for him to have, the quality of objectivity. Buddhists, Jedi, and the "He" in #3deny passion just because it is passion and supposedly passion leads to "The Dark side."

Now, does passion lead to evil? Does passion lead to good? Does it do both?

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

What exactly are you considering as passion here? I know that trusting your feelings leads only to whatever you feel, which is a point against the force.

Estrellita Lenore said...

In denying passion, Buddists would deny good passions like love and joy. I think that passions can lead you to both, depending on the passion. But what's more important is the will. Choices are what really define the path in life, not passions.

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

The passions, for our purposes, equal emotions, desires, etc. And I partly agree with Estrellita, that they can be good or bad. But I would deny that hate, anger, sadness, are bad passions. Rather, they are proper responses to certain things, such as evil. (P.S. Hate here is understood as the emotion of hate, not the act of the will that constitutes mortal sin whenever it is indulged in.)

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

Hence, since the passions are neither good nor evil and because God gave them to us, passionlessness is not something worth seeking and Star Wars is at fault.

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

Makes sense.

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

Any other thoughts on this post? There's a lot more to it besides passions and absence thereof.

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

Um, could you point them out?

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

We could discuss:

1. The truth of any premise.
2. The validity of any inference from the premise(s).
3. The implications of the premises and/or conclusions.
4. Objections to my premises or conclusions.
5. My (excellent hee hee :) writing style.

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

In layman's language, that means we can discuss

1. My evidence
2. My reasoning
3. The consequences
4. Reasons against my evidence or thesis.
5. My (excellent hee hee :) writing style.

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

Ha ha. Pick one.

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

No, you pick one. I don't really want to have a discussion with myself, do I?