Star Wars Confusion
So I was re-watching the orgional Star Wars Trilogy the other day.
(By the way, they are the best out of all of them in my opinion! You actually got to know the characters really well.)
And I was watching the end where Luke is Battling the Emporer and Darth Vader.
I was rather shocked and dismayed at how confusing the philosophy was in it.
It just reminded me once again that you can’t accurately learn the truth about violence among other things from the telly or movies.
There was some accuracy, but then mixed messages were presented.
So the Emporer is encouraging Luke to give in to his rage because that will turn him to the dark side. Well, this is true.
Acting from a place of rage will only bring pain, saddness, suffering, and shame.
Even though no one would blame him for killing the evil old fart, and it would save thousands — if not millions of lives…. He would have lost personally because he would have lost a vital part of what made him a good man.
But when he is fighting Vader and Princess Leah’s identity is revealed and she is put in greater danger by this; Luke wants to protect his sister from the powers of these evil men.
This is where the confusion starts.
Luke was acting from a place that was unselfish and full of love. He wanted his sister to be safe, and that is ABSOLUTELY a motive coming from a very powerfully GOOD place. Yet the Emporer is droning on about how it will turn him to the dark.
Then we see Lord Vader’s change of heart, and his realization that he too wants to protect someone that represents love to him.
So he actually follows through and DOES kill the evil Emporer. This was Vader’s step into the light. Into goodness, wholeness and forgiveness.
This is where he chooses to stop something horrible from happening and the only way to do that was to bring the Emporer to death.
This saves hundreds of thousands of lives, plus the life of his own son.
Though he himself put many to death and lead a life bringing horror to others, by this act he wishes to create a recompense.
So my point is that though there was some parts of that scene that were accurate, it is VERY important to realize that when Luke is pushing to kill Vader in order to protect his sister that he is actually doing something that qualifies as good.
I’m sure many Star Wars fans will be upset at the criticism of the scene, but I feel that it’s important to bring up and make obvious.
Eldra McCracken
© BeautifulWarriorWomen.com
Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written consent of Eldra McCracken.
http://www.beautifulwarriorwomen.com
June 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I think the confusion is mixing violence with the intent. The Emperor was goading Luke to strike from hatred, to kill the Emperor because Luke hated the Emperor and wanted the Emperor dead. However, were Yoda standing there, he would have countered that killing the Emperor isn’t the goal. The hatred should not be the reason. Saving lives would be the motivation. Strike from a center of hope and humanity, not from rage.
Violence, in and of itself is neither good or bad. When I chop wood, I must commit myself to a violent act, but there really isn’t any moral issue with chopping dead wood for a winter fire.
Rage brings power, but there is a loss of control, which is why Yoda wants Luke to practice his abilities so that he doesn’t need to rely on rage.
By the way, I agree. The original 3 were the best, then, Lucas fell to the Dark Side of money and fame … gosh, I wish I was tempted by money and fame.
Heath
June 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Correct. The intention behind the action defines the whole thing. That is the point I was making and I’m glad that you said it so clearly.
People instinctively know this, which is why no one is horrified if someone uses violence to protect themselves.
Thanks for the great comment.
Eldra