GameBanshee Forums

Well, I have beaten this game for Xbox four times now - LS and DS once for each gender. DS is a blast but I found that the choices as a bad guy are just too nasty and I felt kinda bad for doing them. As a true Light Jedi, I enjoyed the game a lot more and I felt that, in the end, I rather pitied Darth Malak. After all, it was Revan who led Malak down the dark path and is in some way responsible for him. He was resistant to explore the Star Maps initially.

Some might argue that Malak may have turned dark regardless but what if Revan was truly responsible? AFter I wiped the floor with his ass I could not help but feel "poor Malak.. so sorry I did this to you."

comments?

Spoilers

I wanted to kill him from the begening I mean destroying Taris and all,Stealing bastilla from me ,having no jaw,Betraying me!!!I wanted to just crush him...So I did

LOL! I have absolutely no ability to relate to any of the Star Wars characters. Since the first film appeared years ago, I've found them the modern-day equivalent of those horrific Flash Gordon movie serials that appeared in the 1930s, and which George Lucas readily admitted (until he decided he got a big head, and decided he had drawn his fiction from Great Literature). It's all 19th century Victorian melodrama, complete with villains snarling in black capes and stovepipe hats: good for a quick belly laugh if you want to look at character, and not much else.

Ultimately, the serial and comic book nature of Star Wars was part of its appeal to many of us as youngsters. The earliest movies probably had more character development than many of its ilk, but ultimately they boil down to representing distinct archetypes (and in all fairness, Lucas was obviously influenced by the figures such as Joseph Campbell. It just so happens that Campbell's own work compliments the 1930's comic genre quite well, being sort of a pop Jung). This can make it difficult to feel much sympathy for Star War villains; they tend to be very stereotypical and, hence, unsympathetic.

That said, even upon reflecting on all the reasons I *should* feel bad for Malak, it's quite difficult to feel sympathy for him. He's simply too much of a stereotypical villain, complete with nihilistic, megalomania, and treacherous characteristics. Honestly, while I liked KoTOR quite a bit, I found Malak to be somewhat uninspired. He certainly did not draw the more complex grey lines we saw in KoTOR2. Although, I suppose that's true to the entire Star Wars genre.

[QUOTE=Faust]. Honestly, while I liked KoTOR quite a bit, I found Malak to be somewhat uninspired.[/QUOTE]

i agree with you there, there should have been more to the villian and why he did what he did.

[QUOTE=Faust]The earliest movies probably had more character development than many of its ilk, but ultimately they boil down to representing distinct archetypes (and in all fairness, Lucas was obviously influenced by the figures such as Joseph Campbell.[/QUOTE]

Though I'd agree in calling Campbell something of a "pop Jung," I think finding evidence of even Joseph Campbell in George Lucas' Star Wars universe is like finding evidence of Miyamoto Musashi in Kill Bill. It isn't there; and the only reason anybody thinks it is, is that Lucas himself decided to bull the press in long interviews after the success of his three films. Pulp fiction creator that he is, he wants to be recorded as A Great Mind.

This reminds me of an occasion I was invited out to preview several games in-the-works at the LucasArts offices, about 8 years ago. It's in a secluded area outside LA in a redesigned mansion (with its own winery that's operating once more). Comes with a huge library. I noted some of the titles--very exclusive, many of them dating back to the earlier part of the last century. I was told that Lucas actually picked the books for the library.

Later, I found he got 'em brought in by the cartload from an auction house. LOL!

[QUOTE=fable]Though I'd agree in calling Campbell something of a "pop Jung," I think finding evidence of even Joseph Campbell in George Lucas' Star Wars universe is like finding evidence of Miyamoto Musashi in Kill Bill. It isn't there; and the only reason anybody thinks it is, is that Lucas himself decided to bull the press in long interviews after the success of his three films. Pulp fiction creator that he is, he wants to be recorded as A Great Mind. [/QUOTE]

Well, the claim is that Lucas discovered "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" by Campbell somewhere after writing one of the many drafts of the original Star Wars, and it helped him crystallize the script and subsequent films. As "The Hero" was a relatively famous work even pre-Star Wars and Lucas and Campbell subsequently formed a friendship, it's not that far fetched.

The concepts that Campbell utilizes in the book seem to be borrowed from Jungian archetypes, which is why I referred to him as a pop-Jung. In all fairness to him, what Campbell is trying to do bears more of a resemblance to prevalent anthropological themes in the 1970s. What Campbell does in this book is look at the common themes in the underlying myths about the hero. While, I'd agree it’s far fetched to give Lucas too much literary credit, I can see the parallels with Campbell's work in the first Star Wars movie trilogy. Essentially the rubric is departure, initiation, and the return that permeates Campbell's understanding (with a vast array of sub-themes).

What should be emphasized is that these are relatively common themes that don't in themselves imply a great deal of academic sophistication. From a philosophical, historical, or anthropological standard it’s hard to consider anything Campbell did in his career as anything more than a pop representation of more intricate theories. And, what many would argue Lucas borrowed from Campbell was really themes that were moreorless present in comic book of the Golden Age or high school remembrances of Greek mythology, anyway.

With that said, I have no trouble at all believing that Lucas tried coloring his work with latter bouts of pomposity. It tends to come with success and fragile egos, unfortunately. I can't count the number people I've know who keep books in their home they have never read (or never will) simply to impress guests.

um...but that's probably a bit off subject. Still, no sympathy for Malek!

Faust wrote:The concepts that Campbell utilizes in the book seem to be borrowed from Jungian archetypes, which is why I referred to him as a pop-Jung. In all fairness to him, what Campbell is trying to do bears more of a resemblance to prevalent anthropological themes in the 1970s... While, I'd agree it’s far fetched to give Lucas too much literary credit, I can see the parallels with Campbell's work in the first Star Wars movie trilogy... What should be emphasized is that these are relatively common themes that don't in themselves imply a great deal of academic sophistication. From a philosophical, historical, or anthropological standard it’s hard to consider anything Campbell did in his career as anything more than a pop representation of more intricate theories. And, what many would argue Lucas borrowed from Campbell was really themes that were moreorless present in comic book of the Golden Age or high school remembrances of Greek mythology, anyway.

You guys (Faust/Fable) are awfully hard on both Campbell and Lucas. The fact that they distilled more complex theories and made them popular is why we are still here debating them. There is something to be said for taking academic concepts and giving them mass appeal, which is something that Lucas did with great success (whether he meant to or not).

I am not a serious student of Campbell but I am a serious student of Philosophy and my biggest gripe with philosophers is the language used to convey the ideas of philosophy (if anyone has ever read Kant they will know what I am talking about). At the risk of getting on my own personal soapbox, let's just say that when well done, stovepipe hats and dark capes can get people thinking about tensions between good and evil, the human psyche, corruption (power) as an internal/external force, redemption, etc.

Do You Feel Sorry for Darth Malak?

I have no sympathy for Malak. I think he was weak willed and followed Revan to the DS because he was too much of a sissy not too. Then, he tried to stab Revan in the back, messed it up, and finally wasn't able to defend the Sith-status he stole to begin with. No dimension, no depth, no sympathy

I agree with the above. No point going into anything more, since it's all above anyway!

No sympathy for Malak. I enjoy the mean dialog choices and being mean in general, so I feel he was weak and deserved to die. How ill-minded he was to think he could steal the mantle of Dark Lord from me!

chemicalNova

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]You guys (Faust/Fable) are awfully hard on both Campbell and Lucas. The fact that they distilled more complex theories and made them popular is why we are still here debating them.[/quote]

Not so. First, I think Campbell may have been a popularizer of Jung's theories, but his credentials in the field of comparative religion were established decades earlier with the Eranos Yearbooks. Second, we're debating Lucas' films, not because he made complex theories popular, but because he had huge box office hits and knew had to merchandise them into an ongoing financial empire.

I am not a serious student of Campbell but I am a serious student of Philosophy and my biggest gripe with philosophers is the language used to convey the ideas of philosophy (if anyone has ever read Kant they will know what I am talking about). At the risk of getting on my own personal soapbox, let's just say that when well done, stovepipe hats and dark capes can get people thinking about tensions between good and evil, the human psyche, corruption (power) as an internal/external force, redemption, etc.

I've no disagreement with your characterization of the tools of philosophy has been beyond the grip of the average person. But I think the problem there is a poorly paid school system with no critical oversight (public school education being of minor importance to the elite), that never trains young children in the basics of logic, and later in the importance of critical evaluation. Lacking that, the mental discipline necessary to make informed choices through life is severely hampered; hampered still further in a modern commercial culture that has greatly refined the means to control and/or influence people.

That said, I've yet to observe that using stereotypes in a stereotypical fashion produces anything more than approval from those who already believe everything is black and white. I think if anything, this kind of ethical universe, with its extremely polarized view of morality and simplistic solutions, only expresses the national myths of my fellow US citizens: quick and easy ways to solve every problem, no need to analyze anybody who disagrees with you, they're all evil, etc. Lucas' Dark Side is nothing more than the idealized bugaboo who must be stopped to bring happiness. On a more realistic level, it was at various times in the last century Communism, Asia ("The Yellow Peril"), Nazisim, and now Terrorism. It needn't be analyzed, because it's Pure Evil.

As for Malak, I can find as much sympathy for him as I could for all terrorists who were described in general recently on the BBC by a member of the Cato Institute (a far-right think tank) as "cancer cells. All you can do with cancer cells is kill them." If we label other ideologies as cancer cells in need of murder, we destroy any possibility of other solutions. And IMO, if we create a Darth Malak or a Darth Revan in fiction, we eliminate any possibility of empathy from the start because it's hard to empathize with a cancer cell.

(PS: I was going to suggest you join us over in SYM because of your well-formed argument. Then I finished, and noticed who I was specifically responding to. Heh. )

Spoilers, rants, spam- the whole gamut

*rolling up sleeves*

Okay Fable, you might as well move this to SYM right now. The can of worms is open, so I'm going to reply to everything but Darth Malak.

From the outset I want to make two things abundantly clear:
(1) I know nothing about Campbell
(2) I know almost nothing about Jung.

That said, I can't engage you (or anyone) in any meaningful discussion of them in any way. What I do know a little better, however, is philosophy, and I am fascinated by fantasy, like Star Wars and LOTR.

[QUOTE=fable] I've no disagreement with your characterization of the tools of philosophy has been beyond the grip of the average person. But I think the problem there is a poorly paid school system with no critical oversight (public school education being of minor importance to the elite), that never trains young children in the basics of logic, and later in the importance of critical evaluation. [/QUOTE]
I agree with this partially, and I am in the unique position of working in the Public Education sector. However, I would venture to say that argumentation, logical construction of premises and critical evaluation are not the responsibility of the public school system to teach. What I mean is that the proofs and rhetoric that western philosophers use are often so advanced that they are regularly misunderstood by other teachers of philosophy. Their arguments are so nuanced and multidimensional that most people could never understand them- I include myself in this group.

Beyond the difficult logical structures, even the language used in arguments is awful. As I said, Kant is near impossible to read. So is Nietzsche, for entirely different reasons. Aristotle takes some getting used to, but modern thinkers like Levinas- forget it! For me the brilliance of these thinkers (and they are brilliant) is overshadowed by the language they use.

[QUOTE=fable] I've yet to observe that using stereotypes in a stereotypical fashion produces anything more than approval from those who already believe everything is black and white. I think if anything, this kind of ethical universe, with its extremely polarized view of morality and simplistic solutions, only expresses the national myths of my fellow US citizens: quick and easy ways to solve every problem, no need to analyze anybody who disagrees with you, they're all evil, etc. Lucas' Dark Side is nothing more than the idealized bugaboo who must be stopped to bring happiness. [/QUOTE]

Stereotypes stereotypically? Isn’t that like the Department of Redundancy Department?

In terms of the use of stereotypes, I disagree. Sometimes simple pieces make a complicated puzzle, and whether or not the LS/DS conflict is simplistic, it makes people think about complicated tensions in ways they never did. For example, ask yourself if the corrupting influence of the DS is an external force (from some other person/object) or an internal force (from one’s own person)? I don’t think you will be able to come to a concise answer. Consider Anakin/Darth Vader- he certainly is heavily influenced by outside forces (Senator/Emperor Palpatine). However, he is also internally conflicted from the beginning of the dramatic timeline (the whole virgin birth thing, his impatience and aggression). In the end there is no clean conclusion.

In KoToR there are numerous examples of the tension caused by the idealized bugaboo of the LS/DS, epitomized by Jolee. If KoToR is a source, then there is a LS, a DS, and a Neutral Side! Jolee seems to prove that you can do what’s right while doing something that is not necessarily good- how can that be?! This certainly doesn’t fit well with the original LS/DS paradigm, but it emerged out of that simple paradigm. As a matter of fact, you said that matters of LS/DS tension were much better handled in KoToR II (which I haven’t played). To me that sounds like you are allowing at least some degree of nuance into the bugaboo.

[QUOTE=fable]On a more realistic level, it was at various times in the last century Communism, Asia ("The Yellow Peril"), Nazisim, and now Terrorism. It needn't be analyzed, because it's Pure Evil…As for Malak… we eliminate any possibility of empathy from the start because it's hard to empathize with a cancer cell. [/QUOTE]

I don’t think that the Cato institute is a good source. If you take them seriously you believe that you don’t need public school systems, firemen, or highways- I don’t think you really believe that, do you Fable? Didn't you ever read that Onion article with the headline Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department?

However, you do raise a good point, something that JRR Tolkein was very conscious of. He drew a sharp contrast between “allegory” (the intent of the author) and “applicability” (the conclusions of the reader). I think that difference is important here. If you take Star Wars to be allegorically true, then you are dumb enough to believe false analogies regarding cancer cells and terrorist cells. However, if you view Star Wars in the light of applicability, you will have a whole new respect for the tensions that emerge- LS/DS, freedom/destiny, ability of an individual, right/good, etc. Go back and play Korriban in KoToR and you will see that the arguments put forth in favor of the DS are actually quite compelling . And what about the memory wipe of the main character by the Jedi council? That is a grade A ethical morass.

Maybe the only thing I’ve proven here is that Bioware added depth to a degree that George Lucas can only dream of. However, I think that Star Wars started out as a dynamic approach to history (remember, it takes place a long time ago), and it you can take this to as deep a level as you would like. Undoubtedly though, if you really think about the problems posed, more thought and analysis is encouraged, not less (we are still debating, right?).

[QUOTE=fable]I was going to suggest you join us over in SYM because of your well-formed argument. Then I finished, and noticed who I was specifically responding to. Heh. [/QUOTE]

Funny thing about that- a little while ago I wrote about Nazis in KoToR and Aegis said something like “I want him for SYM”… and my productivity at work has never been the same.

Moving, as suggested. But I'll leave a redirect, in case anybody in the original KotoR forum wishes to be stupified.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I agree with this partially, and I am in the unique position of working in the Public Education sector. However, I would venture to say that argumentation, logical construction of premises and critical evaluation are not the responsibility of the public school system to teach. What I mean is that the proofs and rhetoric that western philosophers use are often so advanced that they are regularly misunderstood by other teachers of philosophy. Their arguments are so nuanced and multidimensional that most people could never understand them- I include myself in this group.[/quote]

Did I say that first graders should be taught Hegelian dialectics? I wrote "the basics of logic, and later in the importance of critical evaluation.," and I meant that; note the word basics. In other words, they should be taught very early in life by the school system--which in most societies functions as a substitute for formerly home-based socialization and world-relating skills--what logic consists of, how it is used, and how to recognize the difference between it and, false logic, as in, say, the fallacy of exclusion, or the straw man, or the application of prejudicial language.

Stereotypes stereotypically? Isn’t that like the Department of Redundancy Department?

A deliberate over-emphasis with a quirk to the lips. When you develop a emoticon that includes an almost-smile but doesn't venture as far as a wink, please contact me. We'll make millions.

In terms of the use of stereotypes, I disagree. Sometimes simple pieces make a complicated puzzle, and whether or not the LS/DS conflict is simplistic, it makes people think about complicated tensions in ways they never did. For example, ask yourself if the corrupting influence of the DS is an external force (from some other person/object) or an internal force (from one’s own person)? I don’t think you will be able to come to a concise answer.

And do you really think that 99.999% of the young people that watch Star Wars are truly influenced by any of this? I must beg to differ, here. And I honestly find any attempt--not yours, I speak generally--to foist a philosophical exoskeleton on a series of fairly mindless action films like Star Wars more like a Glass Bead Game than anything else: academia playing to itself. If one wants and has the knowledge, it's easy to place all sorts of deep observations on everything from Flash Gordon to Xena to Archie comics to Winniie-the-Poo. But it isn't there. It's in well-written dramatic films; that kind of stuff isn't by any means limited to Melanchthon arguing the subject of free will. But IMO finding it in an updated 1930s serial with paper-thin characterization and writing like Star Wars is a matter of imposing from the outside.

I don’t think that the Cato institute is a good source. If you take them seriously you believe that you don’t need public school systems, firemen, or highways- I don’t think you really believe that, do you Fable?

You know, I really don't like it when somebody decides to play debating or condescension games with content. And I find it very hard, given the phrasing above, to find anything other than a deliberately irrelevant reductio ad absurdum tagged with a smirk in your remarks. I think you know very well that I brought up the Cato Institute as representative of a particular mindset demonizing all human beings that it perceives in a way that makes their deaths not merely okay, but beneficial. As such, it is a good realworld correspondent to an extremely polarized action film where you're either ultra white or ultra black, and everything can be resolved by just killing those people you don't like; since they're no longer people.

Or as I wrote in my last post above, "I think if anything, this kind of ethical universe, with its extremely polarized view of morality and simplistic solutions, only expresses the national myths of my fellow US citizens: quick and easy ways to solve every problem, no need to analyze anybody who disagrees with you, they're all evil, etc." IMO, the same nation that produces the Cato Institute and is ruled by the PNOC signatories logically produces fantasy films in which evil is evil because it's...evil. And good guys have to stop them, or everyone will be crushed, because that's what good guys do. Jung and Campbell don't figure into it, by my way of thinking, and I was trying to explain what *does* figure into Star Wars. National myths. Clear enough?

If you're seriously unable to understand what I thought was a simple point, I'll try to be clearer, next time. It is never my intention to confuse (unless I'm spamming), and clarity is essential in these kinds of discussions. But if you're just attempting to score debating points, you can debate with a mirror, for all I'm concerned. I won't bother responding if this is how you see discussion, rather than as a clash, combination, or coexistence of ideas.

Maybe the only thing I’ve proven here is that Bioware added depth to a degree that George Lucas can only dream of.

Not at all, because you've offered up no "proof," only personal observations. I don't find any of the elements you discover in KotoR; but you have convinced me that you believe they are there.

First of all, I didn't mean to imply that simply because Campbell is "pop," he's worthless. So, excuse me if that was the impression I gave. I do think Campbell condensed and popularized some very important and interesting themes. Personally, I found "Hero With a Thousand Faces" very interesting and useful, when I first encountered it many years ago.

Secondly, I do think a level of sophistication is necessary for philosophy. Certainly the lionshare of philosophers from Aristotle to Hegel to Wittgenstein belly a degree of sophistication that requires much effort for novice readers to understand. Likewise, between translations and mediocre prose, these works are often not as accessible to every student of the field as we'd like. However, I would argue that academic philosophy does require a level of sophistication and precision with language in order to properly convey nuanced ideas. In many cases to "popularize" it, causes it to become a different argument entirely. I have a degree in philosophy and am fairly accustom to reading difficult texts, so I could go on about this for a while. However, as I said earlier, certainly pop sources have their place. I'd just like to suggest the academic philosophy does as well.

Likewise, I disagree that the language used in these works is "awful." I can understand why someone who is new to reading those types of material would feel that way, but a serious student understands that the language and formation of the argument is intentional and carefully chosen by the giants of the field. Similarly, I really have never understood those who criticize Nietzsche's use of language. From a literary standpoint, he's quite brilliant. Ultimately, many of his philosophical conclusions are questionable at best, but the manner in which he presents them is fascinating and, in itself, is a demonstration of his philosophical system.

Thirdly, there was a time when I would agree that Star Wars had an interesting theological and philosophical appeal. The earliest films are direct personifications of prevalent religious cosmologies, i.e. the ultimate battle between good and evil, the notion of incarnation, the hero's triumphant journey, the repercussions of evil, etc.

However, my basic concern remains the "simplicity" of the concepts; they are simply too black and white for my tastes. While I certainly think you are right in noting that KoTOR2 introduced a "grey line." This is something that is not present, or really allowed by Lucas's basic concepts; it's rather a third party expansion. You mention the notion of "Darth Vader" as an example of moral complexity in the Star Wars trilogy. I have trouble even considering this nuanced, as it's very much "Well, he gave into evil and was thoroughly corrupted by it." Quite frankly, that's not that interesting of a theme to me. More importantly, it seems to be direct outgrowth of Cold War-esque dualism that was prevalent at the time Star Wars was constructed.

In my estimate, most human being – ranging from mad dictators to saints – view their actions as morally just or at least not morally bankrupt. Given, they may follow different systems (ranging from latent utilitarianism to a Kantian categorical imperative), but the majority of people rarely consider themselves completely “evil.” As such, I don’t find the notion of a “Dark Side” all that useful. It implies a total and unconditional evil that I simply am not convinced exists. Ultimately, morality is very much about perspective, and those who believe they walk in stark shades of it are usually the most dangerous people of all. In my estimate, those would be far more interesting themes.

This is not to say it’s completely lacking in moral value. I suppose the very fact that we’re taking hours to discuss its moral importance, is evidence enough that it has some value. It at least has us thinking and talking about the issues. I simply don’t feel its contribution to that field of inquiry is as valuable as some do.

Anyway, I’ve prattled on entirely too long. My apologies.

Re: Fable

[QUOTE=fable]Did I say that first graders should be taught Hegelian dialectics? I wrote "the basics of logic, and later in the importance of critical evaluation.," and I meant that; note the word basics.[/QUOTE]

I say again that I agree. The basics of logic should be taught, and the intent in classrooms today is to do so. Throughout the course of high school students should take 3-4 English courses. The courses offer critical analysis of selected works (i.e.- Shakespeare) and teach the basics of logic in the form of persuasive essay construction. All students are taught to write persuasive essays, outlining an argument they use to win others over. This has become so popular that the persuasive essay recently became part of the standard SAT 1 test. Likewise, in these classes on rhetoric, students are taught how to recognize flawed arguments, even if they never hear it couched in those terms- I knew what a straw man was before I took a logic or philosophy course, for example. Some students are probably even taught Hegelian dialectics, but personally I think this is an ambitious requirement to place uniformly on high school students.

It seems that you have misunderstood what I meant about philosophical language. I don’t disagree that philosophy needs precise language. However, I think that most philosophers do a poor job crafting their ideas in a manner that most people can understand. This makes them thoroughly inaccessible to most people who read them. Take for example Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, which was so difficult and long that Kant wrote an abstract for it and called it the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics . The Critique is thought to be a pinnacle of Western Philosophy, but have you tried to read it? It is really very difficult, and people spend their entire lives trying to master it. Maybe Kant anticipated this and wrote the Prolegomena , but he didn’t do this for the Critique of Judgment or the Critique of Practical Reason . Plato, too, remains entirely open to interpretation, and most Platonists from the various schools can’t agree about what Plato is saying in any given dialogue. This, as far as I am concerned, is the fatal flaw of philosophy- that the pursuit of Wisdom is buried under jargon. I think that philosophy could have a much more profound effect if the language was easier to understand- look at contemporary thinkers who produce quality work in a manner that most people can read- Robert M. Pirsig, Thomas S. Kuhn, even John Rawls or Stephen Hawking. People talk of paradigms because of Kuhn and objectivity in state justice because of Rawls, but most people still misread Descartes’ cogito and Plato’s allegory of the Cave- is there really any excuse for that? Do people realize that the “lost city of Atlantis” has its origins in an obscure Platonic dialogue about metaphysics?

[QUOTE=fable] Stereotypes stereotypically? Isn’t that like the Department of Redundancy Department?

A deliberate over-emphasis with a quirk to the lips. When you develop a emoticon that includes an almost-smile but doesn't venture as far as a wink, please contact me. We'll make millions. [/QUOTE]

I was trying to be lighthearted... Sometime discussion gets intense, and I thought a joke at this point might lighten the mood.

<continued in next post- hit post limit>

Re: Fable II

[QUOTE=fable] In terms of the use of stereotypes, I disagree. Sometimes simple pieces make a complicated puzzle, and whether or not the LS/DS conflict is simplistic, it makes people think about complicated tensions in ways they never did. For example, ask yourself if the corrupting influence of the DS is an external force (from some other person/object) or an internal force (from one’s own person)? I don’t think you will be able to come to a concise answer.

And do you really think that 99.999% of the young people that watch Star Wars are truly influenced by any of this? I must beg to differ, here. And I honestly find any attempt--not yours, I speak generally--to foist a philosophical exoskeleton on a series of fairly mindless action films like Star Wars more like a Glass Bead Game than anything else: academia playing to itself. If one wants and has the knowledge, it's easy to place all sorts of deep observations on everything from Flash Gordon to Xena to Archie comics to Winniie-the-Poo. But it isn't there. It's in well-written dramatic films; that kind of stuff isn't by any means limited to Melanchthon arguing the subject of free will. But IMO finding it in an updated 1930s serial with paper-thin characterization and writing like Star Wars is a matter of imposing from the outside. [/QUOTE]

I grew up watching Return of the Jedi and it was one of the first times I was ever confronted with having to think about right versus wrong. I didn’t say that Star Wars was flawless- I said that it could encourage people to think about ethical themes. Cheesy or not, you didn’t answer any of my questions about internal/external forces, problems caused by Jolee, any level of nuance you thought existed in any Star Wars game, any measure of accountability/applicability, a historical approach, or really anything else I presented. I am less concerned with the validity of any one of these aspects than I am with the ability of Star Wars (and Fantasy as an extension) to help people think critically and ethically. Star Wars is the first exposure I had to what I later realized to be thought experiments. Thought experiments are a tool philosophers use to get at abstract problems, most notably mind-body duality and ethical dilemmas. Not surprisingly, role-playing is very similar to an extended thought experiment.

If you don’t agree with observations then please say so, and if you feel strongly then say why. However, please don’t attack me personally. Also, please don’t use the same informal fallacy (reductio ad absurdum- “99.999%…”) that you disliked so much.

[QUOTE=fable] I don’t think that the Cato institute is a good source. If you take them seriously you believe that you don’t need public school systems, firemen, or highways- I don’t think you really believe that, do you Fable?

You know, I really don't like it when somebody decides to play debating or condescension games with content. And I find it very hard, given the phrasing above, to find anything other than a deliberately irrelevant reductio ad absurdum tagged with a smirk in your remarks. I think you know very well that I brought up the Cato Institute as representative of a particular mindset demonizing all human beings that it perceives in a way that makes their deaths not merely okay, but beneficial. As such, it is a good realworld correspondent to an extremely polarized action film where you're either ultra white or ultra black, and everything can be resolved by just killing those people you don't like; since they're no longer people.

Or as I wrote in my last post above, "I think if anything, this kind of ethical universe, with its extremely polarized view of morality and simplistic solutions, only expresses the national myths of my fellow US citizens: quick and easy ways to solve every problem, no need to analyze anybody who disagrees with you, they're all evil, etc." IMO, the same nation that produces the Cato Institute and is ruled by the PNOC signatories logically produces fantasy films in which evil is evil because it's...evil. And good guys have to stop them, or everyone will be crushed, because that's what good guys do. Jung and Campbell don't figure into it, by my way of thinking, and I was trying to explain what *does* figure into Star Wars. National myths. Clear enough? [/QUOTE]

I don’t agree with the premises of your argument and I tried to skirt them by being humorous. I don’t think the Cato institute is a good example to hold up and I thought you were standing up the Cato institute as a Straw Man. However, to do that properly you first deliberately over simplified what the Cato institute stands for an comitted a false analogy- where does the Cato institute promote “demonizing all human beings that it perceives in a way that makes their deaths not merely okay, but beneficial”? The Cato institute is a think tank and is sometimes right wing, but it is Libertarian, not Conservative, as your post implied. As such, the institute is committed to protecting national interests in a manner that is sometimes similar to the methods of Conservative ideologues. However, they also staunchly defend so-called “Liberal” ideas, like extensive human rights. You do not paint them in a fair light, and that undermines your argument. Furthermore, what demonizing do you mean- The Afghanistan conflict? The Iraq conflict? US foreign policy since WWII? US economic policy since the end of the Cold War? I want to know exactly where your perception is so different from mine, so please elaborate, in this post or others.

[QUOTE=fable]If you're seriously unable to understand what I thought was a simple point, I'll try to be clearer, next time. It is never my intention to confuse (unless I'm spamming), and clarity is essential in these kinds of discussions. But if you're just attempting to score debating points, you can debate with a mirror, for all I'm concerned. I won't bother responding if this is how you see discussion, rather than as a clash, combination, or coexistence of ideas… Not at all, because you've offered up no "proof," only personal observations. I don't find any of the elements you discover in KotoR; but you have convinced me that you believe they are there [/QUOTE]

I don’t know how to respond to this. This, to me, is a personal attack, an ad hominem fallacy. I don’t know who would be tracking points and keeping score. Again, if you don’t agree with what I’ve said then please say so, but please don’t get personal- when you say “Clear enough?” what should I think? Is that welcoming to members? Should I want to post more so that I can receive more sarcastic replies? I have very high expectations for Game Banshee and if I have caused a problem, then mea culpa. I know that everyone here respects your opinion and that respect is well earned. Fable, this isn’t a personal response, but your post was unexpected and I felt like it deserved a more complete reply.

Hopefully any misunderstandings have been cleared up. In any case, if I offended anyone then, again, I apologize. Also, I’m sorry about the long post- I don’t generally like to bludgeon anyone- especially unsuspecting readers- with logical arguments and long responses.

Faust- I will write more soon, but now it is too late.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I say again that I agree. The basics of logic should be taught, and the intent in classrooms today is to do so. Throughout the course of high school students should take 3-4 English courses. The courses offer critical analysis of selected works (i.e.- Shakespeare) and teach the basics of logic in the form of persuasive essay construction. All students are taught to write persuasive essays, outlining an argument they use to win others over.[/quote]

With respect, you appear to miss my meaning, again. First, you state this is being accomplished through the basics of logic being taught to high school students; but I've already stated that it should be taught to very young students, and very early in life: my specific words. I honestly don't see how my remarks could be taken as an endorsement for teaching logic in high school, which is neither early in life, nor when students are young. I meant primary school: first and second grade. Scientific studies have shown that human beings are capable of great feats in learning at that time, and it is the only time, in my opinion, to truly promote the values of basic logic. Second, I am not advocating the use of Shakespeare or the niceties of the English language to teach basic logic skills, and I wouldn't suggest Shakespeare personally for teaching except for his grasp of language-as-music. (IMO, Shakespeare has about as much logic to offer a bad sitcom. What he excelled in was offering superior goulash, and on occasion, superbly musical poetry.) I already mentioned the kinds of things I would like to see covered in basic logic, emphasizing the analysis and critique of appeals with concentration on logical fallacies. (But I can see where you would come to your second point, if you assumed your first, about when I want logic teaching started.) Third, I am utterly opposed to any kind of curriculum that aims at teaching students to focuses upon persuasion, and thus upon making the worst argument appear the best, rewarding a study of lawyerly rhetoric. Students, being human, will ultimately learn on their own how to twist logic and misapply it with great relish throughout life. They don't need to receive incentives or schooling in this. They need, in my opinion, to learn how to avoid the pitfalls of others doing it to them, in a culture whose main drive is persuasiveness as a means to mass commercialism. That's what I want to see taught.

It seems that you have misunderstood what I meant about philosophical language...

I think you make some excellent points, here, but I don't see them as relevant to the discussion of KotoR. I'd rather not diffuse the thread by answering these, here. But I do agree that philosophers through the ages have been (correctly) criticized for their arcane language. I wouldn't necessarily put Plato in the same boat, simply because his writings touched upon many things and possessed the very human virtue of being inconsistent over a lengthy lifetime. Had he done otherwise, I would strongly suspect him of rejecting all personal growth--by which I mean the capacity to change. It's up to later generations to decide where the real jewels in Plato lie, and to argue over that.

Personally, I'm not interested in doing so, however. As with religion, so with philosophy: it's interesting hearing the views of others, since they reveal the depths of other personal worlds. But I can't argue the accuracy of alternative views, nor will I abandon my own. Though I probably will pick up some pointers in the process of listening, provided the discussion isn't too dry.

I was trying to be lighthearted... Sometime discussion gets intense, and I thought a joke at this point might lighten the mood.

Works for me. Just remember that in a serious discussion here in SYM, everything you say will be taken seriously unless you make it clear it's humor, usually through an emoticon.

I grew up watching Return of the Jedi and it was one of the first times I was ever confronted with having to think about right versus wrong.

Then I credit you with having been an extremely deep kinda kid, and I mean that.

I didn’t say that Star Wars was flawless- I said that it could encourage people to think about ethical themes. Cheesy or not, you didn’t answer any of my questions about internal/external forces, problems caused by Jolee, any level of nuance you thought existed in any Star Wars game...

Because, as I mentioned above, I don't find any of this in the films whatsoever. I just observe in them, as I stated above, paper-thin characterization, using the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s as a template. There are no theological or great philosophical questions posed in scripts that are utterly without nuance. Faust, I think, put the matter with precision in his last post. His remarks there express the analysis and views I've encountered everywhere about the films and their content, save from only a select few; so I don't feel that I need to do a script breakdown to establish my points. Rather--what I think you've done, and this is just my perception--is to confuse the trigger to your own philosophical awakening, with the thing itself. You suddenly began thinking as a child about these questions because Star Wars excited you, but the issues you raised and the profundity you recognized in them lay entirely within you. Star Wars was simply your touchstone. I have a Buddhist friend who once saw a feather fall, and suddenly changed his mode of life; but the feather didn't change him, anymore than, I think, Star Wars changed you. Your internal avalanche, so to speak, was prepared ahead of time. It only needed a nudge, but the thing that delivered the nudge was your equivalent of my friend's feather. That, at least, is my take on it.

However, please don’t attack me personally...

Can't see that I have, anywhere in my last post. If you see that, state where you find it. I will attack a position, but I will never, ever attack a person.

Concerning the representative for the Cato Institute, I again think you are completely missing my point. Please read back over what I wrote. I think the analogy was in all honesty pretty obvious, and dead-on. If you don't see it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don’t know how to respond to this. This, to me, is a personal attack, an ad hominem fallacy. I don’t know who would be tracking points and keeping score. Again, if you don’t agree with what I’ve said then please say so, but please don’t get personal- when you say “Clear enough?” what should I think? Is that welcoming to members?

I stated simply that either 1) I wasn't clear enough, and would like to know that, because I think clarity is essential in dialog, or 2) you were deliberately "faking" a misunderstanding of my argument, in order to score points. Where have I invoked some irrelevant fact about you as evidence against your argument--the essence of an ad hominem attack? Please state this precisely. My comments were in reaction to these lines of yours: "I don’t think that the Cato institute is a good source. If you take them seriously you believe that you don’t need public school systems, firemen, or highways- I don’t think you really believe that, do you Fable?" What was I to think of that? They seemed awfully smirky, and still do. And as I told in a PM last night, I got two other PMs for two different SYM posters after your comments appeared, confirming my opinion and then some. One even said you went over the line, and suggested I should contact a forum mod to issue a warning to you.

I thought I made it very clear that I was responding in these lines to your perceived condescension, and asking whether it *was* just that. If my query wasn't clear enough, I don't know what I could have said to make it any clearer. And how does that have anything to do with the way "newbies" are treated? You're not a newbie, and I've never in any post, at any time, made any distinction between a person who posts 5 years, or 5 months, or 5 days in a forum. If you disagree, show me a single instance. At a guess, I think you're confusing straightforwardness with an attack.

Regardless, I can only recommend again that you use emoticons if you don't want certain comments to be taken seriously during a serious conversation. Since I wasn't alone in perceiving those lines as extremely condescending, I think I'm offering good advice.

Re: Faust, Fable

Please forgive the choppy quotes- I don’t want to go over the post limit again.

[QUOTE=Faust]First of all, I didn't mean to imply that simply because Campbell is "pop," he's worthless… I first encountered it many years ago. [/QUOTE]
As I said before, I am not familiar with Campbell, but I am inclined to believe your impressions. Since you grouped Campbell with Lucas my response did so as well. I felt like someone should say something in defense of Star Wars because it is a pop culture event that can encourage people to think ethically.

[QUOTE=Faust]Secondly, I do think a level of sophistication is necessary for philosophy… I would argue that academic philosophy does require a level of sophistication and precision with language … academic philosophy does as well. [/QUOTE]
I agree that academic philosophy needs serious tools of language, mostly because serious work is being done. From pre-Socratics up through contemporary thinkers, philosophers have all tried to make sense of the world and our human experience. The various branches of philosophy each approach this differently- metaphysics looks at how we sense, physics looks at the natural world, political philosophy examines society, etc. Consequently, I'm not really in favor of "popularizing" content, because that brings with it the connotation that it has been simplified.

[QUOTE=Faust]Likewise, I disagree that the language used in these works is "awful." [/QUOTE]

You're right- I don't think that the language is awful either. Awful was the wrong word. How about "unnecessarily difficult" or “jargoned” or “cumbersome”? Those are all closer to what I meant.

[QUOTE=Faust] I can understand why someone who is new to reading those types of material would feel that way…is a demonstration of his philosophical system. [/QUOTE]

Some of the philosophical giants are more difficult to understand than others. Nietzsche is undoubtedly a giant, but he is incredibly inaccessible- without a teacher or a guide, do you think that anyone could really make sense of him? I tried and I had a really hard time, and I enjoy reading dense philosophical texts.

I don't think this makes him less brilliant or less worthy of merit, but I do think that he is difficult to read, and is also easy to misinterpret. This was a volatile combination in the past; I mean, good golly- his work was twisted and misused to back the Nazis regime in Germany! Accessability of content and simplicity of language might lead to a wider audience and deeper understanding.

Kant is at the other end of this spectrum- so methodical and precise in his language that readers can be lost in his writings. And this is a shame, because the writings really are that good- the Critique of Pure Reason is the answer to the metaphysical dilemma that began with Descartes and existed for centuries- through Locke, Berkeley, Hume, to Kant.

Let me take another stab at how I feel- in math, my understanding is that the quality of a proof is determined not only by its validity (T/F) but also by its beauty (simplicity, number of necessary steps). I think something similar should be considered in philosophy. Accessibility is, for me, a factor upon which I judge philosophical writing- maybe I’m just a silly pluralist, but I don’t think having a small vocabulary should keep anyone from accessing great thoughts.

[QUOTE=Faust] Thirdly, there was a time when I would agree that Star Wars… I simply don’t feel its contribution to that field of inquiry is as valuable as some do. [/QUOTE]
I don’t think that Star Wars is a good source of ethics and also agree it is entirely too simplified- right down to the black capes, the “dark side”, and the campy villains. Somehow I got painted into the corner of defending the academic value of George Lucas. Maybe I did the painting myself- I’m not entirely sure at this point. For the sake of clarity I will be blunt- the only consistent value Star Wars has maintained is cash value- the series is a money machine! As fable mentioned, most academic discussion of Star Wars is probably just posturing or over analysis- I totally agree. In this way it is similar to books like “The Philosophy of the Matrix” or “The Philosophy of the Lord of the Rings” and such- there just doesn’t seem to be enough depth in the primary source to warrant a serious philosophical commentary. That is why I tried to distinguish between “allegory” and “applicability”.

The applicability I find in Star Wars is that it’s simple presentation of themes can help people ask ethical questions. It doesn’t provide the answers, but maybe it can get people to think. And that (a lack of thinking) is I guess what I perceive to be the problem I was trying to get at- people today generally don’t think about bigger questions (in no small part due to the media that fable mentioned). But maybe someone somewhere sees a movie or plays the game, and it gets them thinking about a bigger issue, like right vs. wrong. Everyone can relate to the black and white world of Star Wars, so it is an okay tool for starting the dialogue- there is merit in that. After people think about black and white, then maybe they can start thinking about shades of grey.

[QUOTE=Faust] Anyway, I’ve prattled on entirely too long. My apologies. [/QUOTE]
None necessary. If anyone should apologize it is me, and I do. I dashed off a reply yesterday that opened an even bigger can of worms than I realized.

Re: Fable, the Cato Institute
The Cato institute is a libertarian think tank. If you agree with them (and Libertarianism) then presumably you agree with not having public goods- like roads, firemen, or public school systems. Because of what you have said in your posts, I didn’t think you agreed with the Cato institute or Libertarianism. But you didn’t really present them in a strong light either- hence the Straw Man comment. I asked you if you “really believed that” because, no matter how I looked at it, the only way I could understand your Terror/Cancer cell comment was to think that you were stereotyping Libertarians and Conservatives and making them a straw man, all in the same breadth. I didn’t intend to bait, or “cross a line”, but if I did then, again, I apologize.

Re: Little Kids & Logic, Rhetoric

I didn't realize you meant that early in life. I think it is a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure how to make it work practically. Most students in elementary school have enough trouble learning the simple foundations of logic- grammar, math, etc. High school is where students theoretically learn rhetoric, the informal category of logic.

I don't share the same bias against rhetoric and debate that you seem to espouse when you talk about lawerly manipulation of arguments. I assume you are talking about ancient Greek Sophism. I could talk all day about the Sophists- I think that they are one of the most misunderstood schools of philosophy ever because they lost the fight against Plato. In defense of the Sophists:
(1) They were trying to find the Good
(2) They believed in a subjective reality
(3) The root of Sophist is the Greek Sophia, meaning Wisdom.

Re: Noobs

I don’t think I actually said anything about Newbies. I guess we both misread sometimes. (what’s the emoticon for “No harm, no foul”?)

Re: Deep kid, Buddhism

Thanks, I guess- I didn’t about the philosophical merit of Star Wars per se when I was a kid. I mostly remember thinking about whether I liked the green or blue light saber better. Somewhere along the line I started thinking about why the movies were about Anakin, not Luke. Then later I guess I thought about them critically.

I have had “feather moments” like you describe, but Star Wars wasn’t one of them. The story goes that the Buddha became enlightened in part because of a bowl of rice; following the analogy, Star Wars wasn’t my bowl of rice. But maybe it can be for someone.

(Please don’t infer that I think I am enlightened- I only intend the metaphor at face value)

the score, KoToR
And, just incase anyone is actually keeping score, I am left leaning in my political beliefs- from this train wreck of a thread you would never know though And, for a while now, this thread had had nothing to do with KoToR or Darth Malak. Again, originally my fault, I apologize.

I am happy to read replies- I want to hear what you think and I don’t want the last word. However, I personally have found this recent writing to have be combative and taxing. I think I am going to start a new thread in SYM about philosophy in general, just to see if anyone is interested.