Anakin's Fall - schools of thought

"It is the Council's opinion that Padawan Ahsoka Tano has committed sedition against the Republic, and thus, she will be expelled from the Jedi Order."


No, in that scene her crimes and judgement was not what was being debated. Nowhere did they declare her innocent of guilty of the crimes she allegedly commited. What was being debated was the relationship between the Jedi and the Republic. The Jedi serve the senate. Tarkin explains that an internal Jedi trial would appear biased to the senate. By ignoring the senate, they would compromise their relationship and their very purpose as guardians of peace and justice in the Republic.

As much as Filoni tries to be anti-Jedi in this story arc (and in his various interviews), the actual point that Lucas was trying to make was that the Jedi are as much victims in all of this as everyone else. They are stuck in the Sith web, just like the senate and the Republic is. The Jedi see their freedom and jurisdiction limited as time goes on. This culminates in Revenge of the Sith, where Palpatine gets his own representative in the Jedi Council. This is the epitome of totalitarianism. Of course, the Jedi accepted that only as a means of discovering the truth, hence why they ask Anakin to spy on Palpatine and discover what's going on.


It's true.


1. Reading minds (in the sense you're referring to), is not an ability the Jedi have.
2. The issue is not wether or not she was telling the truth. Nowhere did any of the Jedi claim that she was lying. It's about knowing what actually happened and the evidence that is out there.
3. The ability for the Jedi to conduct their own investigation and be able to defend Ahsoka was gone when she escaped military custody. ANd the only detail the Jedi could investigate she only confided to Anakin.


When did that happen? When did they claim that Ahsoka was lying?


No, he's saying that they can now see what happened as a trial of the Force to her. And the fact that she passed said trial is an acknowledgement of her triumph and hardship, not watering down.

Personally, I never liked that scene (or the whole arc) since it's all about validating Ahsoka (and even terrorists) at the expense of the Jedi. If one watches these episodes and sees the Jedi as the bad guys (and Filoni tried that), then that's not what Lucas had intended at all.


And I ask again, apologize for what?


Right, my bad. His reply still isn't uncompassionate.


It's not fear of what the senate thinks. It's being wary of the consequences of not having in consideration the senate they swore to serve.


He knows how to, he's just not willing to take the path. Just like how he recites Jedi wisdom. He knows it, he understands it, but he's not willing to completely follow it through.

In the scene you mentioned, he did not seem genuine because he wasn't being genuine. The way he brought 'love' into the conversation was not in the sense of compassionate love, but infatuation/passionate love. And when Padmé questions him, he recites his Jedi teachings as an excuse by playing with words. The very fact that he knows and understands the difference is why he replied the way he did to begin with.


They didn't alienate her, she alienated herself.

As for Anakin's progress, he was able to let go of Ahsoka. And if she was indeed close to become a Jedi Knight, then the timming was inconsequential.


You're free to see things differently, of course. I used to see a lot of things differently from Lucas. But my pursuit to understand Lucas intentions invariably forced me to accept that reality at the expense of my interpretations. Sadly, a lot of people aren't willing to do that, which is why I think we get certain takes not only in books and other secondary works, but on the big screen.


A common misconception, but the original trilogy corroborates what Lucas said. Attachment is not compassion.

- Luke wasn't attached to Vader. He was compassionate towards him.
- Luke was compassionate but also attached to his friends and to his sister. That's why when he didn't let go of his attachments and let them dictate his actions, it let to failure. First when he didn't finish his training and rushed to Cloud City to save his friends (only to have his friends save him instead), and when Vader threatened to turn Leia to the dark side, where in reaction he almost killed the person he was there to save.
- Luke only triumphs (or becomes a true Jedi) when he recognizes that and lets go of everything.
- Luke was older than Anakin when he started his training, and that's still a potential problem. He had extra steps in his training because of that. He had to unlearn what he had learned. But he also had nothing left of his life remaining when he decides to learn the Jedi way with Obi-Wan. If he had attachments then, they were taken and he recognized that reality there and then.


He doesn't prove the Jedi wrong. He proves them right, with his mistakes and his successes. He fails when he doesn't follow the Jedi way, and he succeeds when he follows it.


In that way lies moral relativism (which is what Palpatine used to ensnare Anakin. Good and bad are absolutes. That's a cornerstone of Star Wars. Everywhere, at any time, we have a choice to do good or evil.


But that's the thing. Luke let's go of passion. His love is unconditional. It's compassion. Likewise, Anakin saves Luke out of compassion, not passion or attachment. Compassion saves them both, and compassion is central to the Jedi way.


Individuals appreciating art can lead to multiple interpretations. That's the nature of art. But in those multiple interpretations there are invariably a lot of misinterpretations. In my interpretations, some might be misinterpretations. That's why I personally like to get to the source for answers. Not just in regards to Star Wars, but other things too. But not all answers have been provided yet.

I think people should watch the movies.

After he was turned, I used to think that Anakin's delusions of grandeur and power (when talking to Padmé on Mustafar) were somewhat jarring. I used to think that they came out of nowhere since that's not what he was after. But I was wrong, of course. Evil is easy to take over. He had already committed atrocities in his quest for a certain power, so having dealt with his guilt, it's only natural that he would think of the next step without the (rightful) moral restraints that he held all his life. Since he already did X, why not do Y as well? And if he can do Y, why not Z? He was possessed, and his hunger for power escalated. It's a reality of evil.

Does Anakin fall or float?

I disagree on this. It makes the character a hopeless case and I don't think that's what we should take away from that. I do think Anakin wouldn't have fallen without Palpatine tempting and pushing him in a certain direction, which means he still had room to grow.

During Anakin's duel with Dooku, the latter says: "I sense great fear in you, Skywalker. You have hate, you have anger, but you don't use them."

This is a testament to Anakin's (fragile) maturity and decision to do the right thing and follow the Jedi way. And we see that in key moments, Anakin would do the right thing had Palpatine not tempted him (execute Dooku, be on the Council and demand for the rank of Master, leave the Council chambers).

That's fair. I can see what you're saying, and for me it's not so much that he was a lost cause from the get-go as it is that he still carries anger independent of Palpatine (unless it's canon that Palpatine hired the Tuskens). 


I think Anakin still would have been afraid of losing Padme, even without the dreams, because of how attached he is and because he wouldn't have been able to heed Yoda's advice and "let go of what he feared to lose" (I personally don't think this is possible to the maximum degree for anyone). 

So, I concede that he could have been helped or chose different. But his main motive for turning to the dark side would still have been there (attachment).

I don't know, I may be off the mark here, but aren't you basically describing Anakin?

Anakin is a Jedi and strong in the Force, but what helps make him relatable to us is that he's also got one foot in the "normal person" world.

To quote TCW Anakin detractors, he's like a cross between Luke and Han.
*not that I'm a big fan of TCW Anakin.

Are you stating the difference between Anakin and the fans is that they want the Jedi to change the rules, but Anakin just broke them? Yes, that makes sense.

Another aspect to this is that rules are made to be both followed and broken. When a value/guideline hardens into a rule, and everyone is expected to ruthlessly adhere to it at all times, then you start running into problems. That isn't smart. That isn't living. That's a broken, repetitive, totalitarian, machine-based reality. It fails to deal with the dynamic frisson of the universe, and runs counter to Qui-Gon's enlightened emphasis on "The Living Force". 

Joseph Campbell probably put it best in his usual way. Some collated quotes:

"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are . . . We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us . . . A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself . . . The goal of life is to make your heartbeat match the beat of the universe, to match your nature with Nature."

George Lucas, of course, essentially humbled himself and became a "padawan", of sorts, to Joseph Campbell and his writings. Some years ago, clearly having actualised his passions and interests, he said the following:



Time Index: 07:12

"I think it's very important not to do what your peers think you should do, [nor to] do what your parents think you should do, [nor] your teachers -- or even [what] your culture thinks -- but do what's inside you."

-- George Lucas (Video: George Lucas' Advice, Uploader: Colorado Flier, Date: Apr 5 2011)

Lucas’ imperative at the end also echoes a famous remark made by Carl Jung:

"He who looks outside dreams. He who looks inside awakens."

Joseph Campbell also expressed similar sentiments repeatedly, perhaps best summed up in the following admonition:

"Follow your bliss."

The Jedi stymie Anakin in following his bliss -- in locating the true core of his inner potential.

Better dead here den dead in da core.

Remember how Anakin experienced the thrill (albeit the dangerous thrill) of racing pods as a slave child? See his obvious joy and enthusiasm when piloting the airspeeder when he and Obi-Wan chase after Zam? Or what he says to Padme later on: "Life seems so much simpler when you're fixing things." The Jedi took away his soul.

Anyway, all that preamble aside, here's something I find super-relevant for the Jedi's handling of Anakin:



Time Index: 13:07

"You could say that religious structures have two elements. There's a dogmatic element and there's a revelatory element or a spiritual element. And the parables and the stories would be sort of midway between the revelatory or spiritual element and the dogmatic element. Now, you need that entire structure because, if you have a revelation, let's say, and you can't transform it into a story and then into a set of guidelines for action, then it remains so unattached from reality that it doesn't produce any change in your life. So you have to concretise the spiritual in order to actualise it.

Now, it's also worth pointing out that conservative political types tilt more towards the dogmatic instantiation of religious structures, and liberal political types more towards the spiritual instantiation. So the liberal types insist that the whole dogma is nothing but an impediment to the spirituality, and, of course, the conservatives say, "Well, no, these are the rules that hold society together."

Part of the problem is that the dogmatic structures are probably more susceptible to aging than the revelatory structures and the stories. Because they're more abstract. They cover more territory but at a lower level of resolution. And so the dogmatic structures may have to be updated. . . 

You don't want to make the mistake of assuming that action that's oriented properly is purely dependent on following a structure of rules, because it is and it isn't. . . To act properly is to take that rule-governed structure and to act it out properly. That keeps everyone's expectations aligned. But also to do something dynamic. That's occurring at the same time. And that's that balance between chaos and order. . .

You want to keep one foot in order and one foot in chaos. And so it’s not to act, say, as if God exists – to follow, to blindly follow a set of rules that are cast in stone. That’s why “12 Rules For Life”, at least in part, is kind of a paradoxical book. Because there are rules, and so you say, “Well... Follow. The. Rules”. But the basic rule of the book is, “No – exist on the border between chaos and order." And that’s a funny rule because the rule is that you should transcend the rule at the same time that you’re following it. And so I don’t know if that’s a rule. It’s something other than a rule. So there’s a joke in it, you know, like an ironic joke."

-- Jordan Peterson (Video: Entrevista a Jordan Peterson | UTBH, Uploader: Un Tio Blanco Hetero, Date: Nov 17 2018)

In a way, I think what Peterson is saying there beats nicely against this quote of Lucas', which I shared in another thread recently:

"I believe in a certain amount of determinism, from an ecological point of view. It's that things essentially reach their own equilibrium. If you don't live a certain way, ecologically speaking, you will be forced into a position that will level it. What I would call an "unpoetic" state will eventually become a "poetic state", because an unpoetic state will not last. It can't. It's like economics. It's like life, it's like animals, it's like everything. You can set up an artificial reality, but eventually it will equalize itself, and become real."

-- George Lucas (p. 108, Dec 1975 to March 1976, The Making Of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind The Original Film, J.W. Rinzler, 2007)