"There is only passion"...or is there?

[BradTheImpaler]

The point is this - whenever there is conflict on a galactic scale, the Order loses grasp on most of its members.

 

So then the question is, why is this? Why do they have such a weak grasp on their members?

 

They'd tell you of course that it's because they present the longer, more difficult path. But then were all of the Jedi who originally joined Revan to defeat the Mandalorians---the original Revanchists---just impatient and power-hungry? That seems unlikely. They have such a tenuous grasp because for all their preaching, the galaxy is full to the brim with the injustices they preach against. Is it irrational to be angry that this is allowed to continue?

 

Force-sensitives who didn't mess around and DID actually go to Tatooine to free slaves, so to speak? I'd be very willing to take them seriously. Where would Juhani and others like her have been if not for Revan's defiance of the Council? She certainly didn't see him as corrupt or evil at that point.

 

If we accept your point that war at least often leads Jedi to the dark side, what do you think happens when people have war forced upon them and the Jedi aren't there to help? Atton says something along these lines in KOTOR 2 as well.

 

If those people are going to use their passion, let it be in defense of those who need defending so that it doesn't have to be out of a desire for revenge against those who did nothing. In fact sometimes a passionate defense will be a stronger one, and allow the necessary sacrifices to be made.

[Beniboybling]

I love getting under KotOR fans' skins with statements such as these. Very easy to make you folks fall to the Dark Side

 

Anyways, on Beni's reply...

 

Whenever there are conflicts, Jedi fall to the Dark Side. Look at Jolee Bindo's story, how many other Sith were not made in a similar fashion due to Kun's treachery and Ulic's tactics? We don't see it in the comics, but it's naive to assume none of them would fall. Just look at the New Sith Wars. Skere Kaan (his story is very Revan-like), Kopecz were both Jedi Knights before joining the Sith, and the countless recruits that fell too. Even the greatest Jedi Masters were not immune to the Dark Side's charms, and an open conflict as brutal as the Mando Wars was bound to bring many Jedi, of all ranks, closer to the Dark Side or in peril of falling. Just like Revan and Malak were down that path way before the wars ended. Assuming they were the only ones flirting with the Dark Side in that conflict is just as naive than assuming many would not have done so in any of the other conflicts you just mentioned. Look at Nomen Karr, Ulic (who was always too pro-active to make his fall unexpected even without Sith poison), and of course, one of the prime examples, Anakin Skywalker.

 

But I would agree with you if you assumed most Jedi would not fall. But none of them would be unaffected, and Vitiate would not need much more than a handful of powerful idealists as Revan to stir up just as much trouble. And how many idealists more would not have been exposed to the Dark Side if the whole Order had strapped on their sabres and sang the jolly joys of hacking up mandos?

 

The point is this - whenever there is conflict on a galactic scale, the Order loses grasp on most of its members. There'd be Jedi Knights and their Padawans, even more roguish Jedi Masters spread too far to keep an eye on. They might not manage to prevent Revan, for example, from coming into contact with the Sith teachings and falling anyways.

And here we have the concept of fear. The Jedi were driven to abstain from the conflict out of fear of the dark side.

 

What's that

 

If the Jedi are to afraid to stand up and fight, then they have already lost. Sounds like a cliche I know but its true, a Jedi has to be prepared to uphold their duty and fight the dark side, not shy away from it. Yes not all Jedi are immune to call of the dark side, but most a trained to be. How many Jedi do we seeing falling to the dark side during the Great Galactic War? Not many. Yet in this case the presence of the dark side is very much behind the scenes, and not an immediate threat. And I doubt the Sith Emperor's puppetry would be any more prominent than it was during the aforementioned conflict. Indeed he made no attempt to turn Revan and Malak. Indeed a better example would be the Clone Wars, how many Jedi fell in that conflict. Barely any worth noting.

 

And again, the Jedi should know by now that the first step to the dark side is division. Better to stand against the threat of the dark side together than to hide away from it while the reckless go to fight it alone. No?

 

Is the proof not in the pudding? How much of a fail was the outcome of the Mandalorian Wars for the Jedi Order? A collosal one, their inaction led to exactly what they have sought to prevent. Indeed this leads me on to my next point. Visions of the future, again we turn our attention to the wise teachings of Master Yoda:

 

"Difficult to see, always in motion is the future."

 

The Jedi Order based almost the entirety of their actions on premonitions of the future. Yet what does the Living Force, the philosophy supposedly accepted by the majority of the Jedi Order tell us? Be mindful of the future, but remain focused on the present. The Jedi Council were content to ignore the happenings of the now i.e. a army of Mandalorian savages laying waste to the Republic and a band of overzealous Jedi going to fight them, when they should have paid more attention to what was unfolding before them, and not put so much faith in visions of the future.

 

Remember how we, as the audience, are encouraged to scorn and recognize the irony of Anakin's actions when he tries to save Padme from the death he has foreseen, and inadvertently causes it. The scenario is exactly the same here, the Jedi chose apathy on the basis of visions, and as such brought about the very thing they sought to prevent.

 

Why? Arrogance. One of the primary faults of the Jedi Order. They are so assured in their own wisdom and the validity of their teachings that they are incapable of seeing or admitting that they are wrong.

[BradTheImpaler]

^

I think this is made even clearer by the Council's discussion of the Jedi Exile. They outright admit that they turned away their one chance to see where they went wrong. Why? Because they sensed something uncomfortable when she appeared before them after Malachor V.

Edited September 23, 2013 by BradTheImpaler

[Beniboybling]

So then the question is, why is this? Why do they have such a weak grasp on their members?

 

They'd tell you of course that it's because they present the longer, more difficult path. But then were all of the Jedi who originally joined Revan to defeat the Mandalorians---the original Revanchists---just impatient and power-hungry? That seems unlikely. They have such a tenuous grasp because for all their preaching, the galaxy is full to the brim with the injustices they preach against. Is it irrational to be angry that this is allowed to continue?

 

Force-sensitives who didn't mess around and DID actually go to Tatooine to free slaves, so to speak? I'd be very willing to take them seriously. Where would Juhani and others like her have been if not for Revan's defiance of the Council? She certainly didn't see him as corrupt or evil at that point.

 

If we accept your point that war at least often leads Jedi to the dark side, what do you think happens when people have war forced upon them and the Jedi aren't there to help? Atton says something along these lines in KOTOR 2 as well.

 

If those people are going to use their passion, let it be in defense of those who need defending so that it doesn't have to be out of a desire for revenge against those who did nothing. In fact sometimes a passionate defense will be a stronger one, and allow the necessary sacrifices to be made.

This people. Let's bring this back down to reality.

 

People are dying. Innocent people are been slaughtered every day by Mandalorian savages. But that's okay right? Forget all those husbands who lost their lives fighting. Forget the women and children driven from their homes and left to starve. Forget the billions of innocent people who died when the Mandalorians orbitally bombarded a planet with nuclear weapons...

 

...Because the Jedi had a vision! That said bad things were going to happen.

 

Well guess what you arrogant, cowardly morons. Bad stuff is happening!

 

Yeah, feel the passion people.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Beniboybling

[atalis]

So I was wondering something about the Sith.

 

Time and time again we are reminded in lore that the "Sith rely on their passion for their power", while Jedi use emotional detachment and meditation to understand the force and to decide on their actions. The Jedi, they say, set aside their emotions in order to make rational decisions (if rational means emotionally-neutral, just looking at the facts and making a logical decision).

 

There are Sith, though, who are rationalists. Darth Tenebrous saw the force as a tool and had a more calculative approach. Darth Vectivus was a businessman who lived by a code of ethics and spent his days gathering information on Sith lore, with no particular violent streak or concern for attacking the Jedi. Dooku is also relatively rational, and we see him using dark side abilities without flying into a blind rage. Then of course there's Kyle Katarn and Jaden Korr, among others, who use dark side abilities because in Katarn's words they are "not inherently good or evil" depending on how they are used.

------

tl;dr

 

So my question is, do dark-siders get their power entirely from passion (i.e. only when angered, vengeful, etc.)?

Is there more to using the dark side than the "Release your anger!" line suggests? How do dispassionate Sith get/use their powers?

 

Very fascinating topic. Yes, I agree that there are many different types of Sith and ways to use the Force. Take my character, for example. He is still relatively young and retains his appearance (no DS corruption) as well as has a lover that he values as something much more than a mere servant, similar to Malgus and Eleena. I think that's certainly a large source of passion, but in a way different that being a killer like Maul.

[AlexDougherty]

So then the question is, why is this? Why do they have such a weak grasp on their members?

 

They'd tell you of course that it's because they present the longer, more difficult path. But then were all of the Jedi who originally joined Revan to defeat the Mandalorians---the original Revanchists---just impatient and power-hungry? That seems unlikely. They have such a tenuous grasp because for all their preaching, the galaxy is full to the brim with the injustices they preach against. Is it irrational to be angry that this is allowed to continue?

 

Force-sensitives who didn't mess around and DID actually go to Tatooine to free slaves, so to speak? I'd be very willing to take them seriously. Where would Juhani and others like her have been if not for Revan's defiance of the Council? She certainly didn't see him as corrupt or evil at that point.

 

If we accept your point that war at least often leads Jedi to the dark side, what do you think happens when people have war forced upon them and the Jedi aren't there to help? Atton says something along these lines in KOTOR 2 as well.

 

If those people are going to use their passion, let it be in defense of those who need defending so that it doesn't have to be out of a desire for revenge against those who did nothing. In fact sometimes a passionate defense will be a stronger one, and allow the necessary sacrifices to be made.

 

And that passion for defense of the Republic corrupted most of them, and caused them to attack the Republic they were passionate about defending. This is the danger of war with force users.

 

Having said that, I don't think those Jedi who fought the Mandaloreans were wrong, just that they were too stretched out to recover their balance, as so they were lost to the Darkside. Had the Jedi Council actually got off their enlightened behinds, and joined with them, then far fewer of the Jedi would have been corrupted, and the Sith would have stayed in hiding.(real Sith and Triumvirate Sith)

[Beniboybling]

To bring this back on topic, a question for us all.

 

Is it possible to draw on the light through one's emotions, and likewise is it possible to draw on the dark side through serenity? Given that in reality the Force transcends these emotions and simply exists?

 

Does the method by which a Force user taps into it really matter?

[Stinghen]

To bring this back on topic, a question for us all.

 

Is it possible to draw on the light through one's emotions, and likewise is it possible to draw on the dark side through serenity? Given that in reality the Force transcends these emotions and simply exists?

 

Does the method by which a Force user taps into it really matter?

 

Look to the story of Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma, real Sith Lords amidst real Jedi Knights

 

Kun believed the powers of the Sith could be conquered without falling to the Dark Side. So, in a way, he wanted to "draw on the light side through serenity". Ulic, too, believed the Dark Side could be conquered from within. Even after he fell to the Dark Side, he still fed himself the lies that he was only attempting to destroy the Krath, when Nomi Sunrider came to Cinnagar to rescue him.

 

I do not think it is possible to admix Light and Dark Side, because of the specific nature of either side. Luke Skywalker said "the Force has no light or dark Sides, but we do. And we must choose." So if you wanna channel emotion, welcome to the extra power that they give you, which stem from the Dark Side of the Force. And try controlling your emotions as you choke someone to death, see how that works. No such thing as "grey Jedi" to me, that's how the Force works, not in the universe, but on individuals.

[Xakthul]

Revan isn't really a true Sith. He's pure Force. He had completely transcended any sort of training or learning that either alignment could teach or learn. Another example would possibly be Galen Marek (AKA Starkiller) He was nearly as powerful as Revan was at the height of his power: Strong enough to challenge the Emperor at the time, and easily able to beat his apprentice(s).

 

 

Onto the next thing: Malgus, Vader, Revan, Starkiller, and Jacen Solo (The Fourth Emperor) are all examples of Sith using love, desire, and determination to harness the Dark Side.

[BradTheImpaler]

And that passion for defense of the Republic corrupted most of them

 

I agree with most of what you said, except for this. By that logic, Carth Onasi would have been corrupted by the dark side.

[BradTheImpaler]

Look to the story of Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma, real Sith Lords amidst real Jedi Knights

 

Kun believed the powers of the Sith could be conquered without falling to the Dark Side. So, in a way, he wanted to "draw on the light side through serenity". Ulic, too, believed the Dark Side could be conquered from within. Even after he fell to the Dark Side, he still fed himself the lies that he was only attempting to destroy the Krath, when Nomi Sunrider came to Cinnagar to rescue him.

 

I do not think it is possible to admix Light and Dark Side, because of the specific nature of either side. Luke Skywalker said "the Force has no light or dark Sides, but we do. And we must choose." So if you wanna channel emotion, welcome to the extra power that they give you, which stem from the Dark Side of the Force. And try controlling your emotions as you choke someone to death, see how that works. No such thing as "grey Jedi" to me, that's how the Force works, not in the universe, but on individuals.

 

It's Bastila's conundrum.

 

I just think about all the evil that the Sith have caused and I... I get so furious. Yet we are told that these feelings are the path to the dark side."

 

Of course, we all know that Bastila fell to the dark side and joined Malak ("After a week of endless tortures, I finally saw the truth"). Was it really outrage at, say, the destruction of the Enclave on Dantooine that caused her to fall, though? Given that she joined Malak, this wouldn't make sense. It was her arrogance and her pledging her loyalty to Malak that were her problems. If anything, she let go of her outrage toward Malak when she joined the Sith.

 

It's certainly possible to walk a line and use both sides, though. Revan was mentioned, but the best example there is might be Mace Windu, who used a form that, to paraphrase him, channeled the dark side into a weapon of the light.

 

That quote of Luke suggests that the dark side is not uniform, i.e. it is not embraced or used for the same reasons by everyone. That's exactly the point. It's a matter of keeping focus on why you are motivated. Caedus, for instance, slipped up once by Force choking an officer and did almost instantly regret it. Others showed either more or less control, of course, but it wasn't an emotion itself that corrupted them, so long as it was channeled or kept in check as needed, with a rational goal in mind. Sith have, after all, tended to be more successful when they unleashed their anger at the right time instead of charging in blindly.

Edited September 25, 2013 by BradTheImpaler

[Kaedusz]

I have the feeling that the Sith Order and the Schisms in the Jedi Order exist because of the Jedi's rigidness ,conservatism and self-righteousness .They are way,way of in one of the polar opposites.And because they are ,naturally the other opposite would appear too.The way it is now,they are both right and they are both wrong.(sith and jedi)

 

The formation of the Jedi Order should have been based on studying and knowledge as an end in itself.That way,the dark side wouldn't be as much a forbidden fruit as it is now.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Kaedusz

[BradTheImpaler]

I have the feeling that the Sith Order and the Schisms in the Jedi Order exist because of the Jedi's rigidness ,conservatism and self-righteousness .They are way,way of in one of the polar opposites.And because they are ,naturally the other opposite would appear too.The way it is now,they are both right and they are both wrong.(sith and jedi)

 

The formation of the Jedi Order should have been based on studying and knowledge as an end in itself.That way,the dark side wouldn't be as much a forbidden fruit as it is now.

 

Yeah, rather ironically, Jacen Solo said something in the NJO about how Jedi should study the Force, not play galactic police.

[Stinghen]

The problem is people either tend to look at things only from a moral/philosophical point of view, and others tend to look at things from only a political one.

 

The Jedi were scholars, their order was founded upon philosophical concepts revolving above all else rational behaviour. If that is the case, accusations made against the Jedi throughout the eras for "passiveness" are made fairly easy, and people might say "with great power comes great responsibility" Ben Parker-like. But the phrase has another interpretation to it.

 

The Jedi, by their innate abilities, possess great power themselves. When they set their minds to it, they alter the fate of the galaxy itself. But in the wrong hands (obviously I mean in Sith hands, but any Dark Jedi - trained in the Jedi arts but fallen from the light - is equally dangerous), their immense power can change the galaxy for the worse. Examples litter the SW universe, and begin with Naga Sadow and his total war, on to Exar Kun, Revan, Traya, Vitiate, Ruin, Kaan, Bane, Sidious and onwards. The line that separates the light from the dark for some powerful beings (like Yoda, Lord Hoth of the Army of Light, Satele Shan, Nomi Sunrider and so on) is very well-definite. But the trouble to the galaxy has always come, and will always come, from the real powerful ones whose line is blurred. Meaning, whose grasp on morality is rather loose. Sadow and Sidious were all-out villains, but some pretty dangerous beliefs within the Jedi Order has always led to the most disastrous wars the Republic has ever seen. From Kun's belief he could master the Sith powers for the betterment of the Jedi and without falling to the Dark Side, to Ulic's belief he could conquer the Dark Side from within, to Skere Kaan believing in an overly pro-active approach against the New Sith, to Anakin believing his love for Padmé would not cause his corruption, and, yes, to your hero Revan believing the galaxy "should be saved regardless of the cost".

 

The proof of that is that, whenever a Jedi with a loose grasp on morality thought to adopt "the ends justify the means" approach to solving problems, then inevitably a destructive total war would follow. Invariably. From Ulic Qel-Droma to Jacen Solo. Star Wars isn't about blasters and space battles or cool dudes with laser swords. Star Wars is about the corrupting nature of power over an individual's mind. That's what the so-condemned Jedi teachings try to keep in check, that is why the Jedi "religion" bears so many similar traces to ancient Asian philosophical practices (such as buddhism), to the expense of our modern western society's man-eat-man philosophy, and its materialism, individualism and moral pragmatism.

 

With this, I retire from this discussion on morality

[Kaedusz]

The Jedi were scholars, their order was founded upon philosophical concepts revolving above all else rational behaviour. P

Wooot? No it wasn't. That's the point.

Also why it should be?The metaphysical works with rationality with a great difficulty.Rationality is connected with the intellect ,which has nothing to do with esotericism and mysticism to which force sensitivity is connected.

Also who you are you to say that when the galaxy is handled by jedi ,it is handled right and when it is handled by sith it is handled by the wrong hands.?Don't forget the Dark Side is legitimate part of the Force.Do you know that the Force,not only the Dark Side was in favour of the Sith imperative-the goal of the Rule of Two?The goal of Bane.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Kaedusz

[BradTheImpaler]

Stinghen:

 

1. They might say that, but they'd be misguided. "Reason" as an abstract word is rather slippery, after all. There were Sith who were rationalists, as has been pointed out already. When it's used to justify "passiveness" in the sense of inaction or outright defense of the status quo, it is more often than not seriously problematic.

 

2. I'm not really interested in a moralistic view. In fact in the RotS novel, the point is made that in certain important ways Yoda is similar to Palpatine. Not in his philosophy or behaviour or professed morals, but in the way his word is treated by his subordinates. It was pretty much a given among Jedi that you don't talk back to Yoda. He was not feared, as Palpatine was, but was instead respected so highly that others hesitated to question him. Meanwhile he fought to defend a Republic that was rotten and still rotting to the core, unlike the few more far-sighted Jedi who walked away from war. In any case, there's also a difference between pragmatism and evil.

 

3. It's worth noting that in Sidious' case, one of the very few truths he shared with Anakin in the midst of all his lies was that he believed that "good is a point of view". He ignored the idea of morality altogether. This of course doesn't mean he couldn't be called "evil". It's important to separate his amorality from his goal of power by any means, though.

 

4. We can't infer/assume that a pragmatic approach would always end badly, because there were specific circumstances and outside manipulation in most or all of these cases. It wasn't Revan's ends-justify-the-means approach that led him to attack the Republic, at least not initially. Consequentialist ethics can in theory be used to justify some pretty crappy stuff, but that doesn't mean it is inevitably/inherently evil.

 

5. The problem is of course when that Jedi 'religion' exists not at the expense of a materialistic, individualistic and morally pragmatic (or amoral) society, but in service to it. 'Reason' can be used in the service of what we'd call evil, too, and its often been passionate people who may not fully understand (at the time at least) everything about an oppressive society's workings who have brought change for the better.

 

Anyway, well put.

Edited September 25, 2013 by BradTheImpaler

[Beniboybling]

The Jedi were scholars, their order was founded upon philosophical concepts revolving above all else rational behaviour. If that is the case, accusations made against the Jedi throughout the eras for "passiveness" are made fairly easy, and people might say "with great power comes great responsibility" Ben Parker-like. But the phrase has another interpretation to it.

Correction, the Je'daii were scholars. The Jedi are warriors who's primary philosophical concepts revolve around serving the light and banishing the dark at all costs. Essentially they empower themselves with a misguided sense of what they believe to be justice, which is flawed. In reality they and the rest of the galaxy would be much better off is they returned to the old ways and retreated to Tython.

[AlexDougherty]

I agree with most of what you said, except for this. By that logic, Carth Onasi would have been corrupted by the dark side.

 

Carth Onasi wasn't a Force User, therefore wasn't as open to Darkside Corruption (he could still be corrupted but not by himself).

 

The Jedi were corrupted by their passions, that is why Revan was able to turn them into Sith.

 

They started out filled by eagerness to defend the Republic, and ended up trying to destroy it. It was a curious path, their passion for defending the Republic made them aggressive against the Mandaloreans, their aggressiveness brought in the Darkside, the Darkside twisted how they perceived the Republic (weak mostly), and so to save the Republic they went to war with it's government (they still believed they were in some way protecting it). When the Republic resisted they destroyed key planets (Telos and it's droid factories for example), and the more they fought the less they cared about collateral damage.

 

But even at their worst they still beleived they were going to transform the Republic and Save it, of course their definition of saving it was twisted and rotten, but they were still driven by their passion to save their civilisation.

[AlexDougherty]

Correction, the Je'daii were scholars. The Jedi are warriors who's primary philosophical concepts revolve around serving the light and banishing the dark at all costs. Essentially they empower themselves with a misguided sense of what they believe to be justice, which is flawed. In reality they and the rest of the galaxy would be much better off is they returned to the old ways and retreated to Tython.

 

Actually the Je'daii were warrior philosophers, rather than scholars, might seem like a minor point, but scholarship embraces a more logical approach than philosophy, philosophers can and have believed mutually exclusive things before, and while scientists and scholars also do this, it is more common among philosophers.

[Beniboybling]

Actually the Je'daii were warrior philosophers, rather than scholars, might seem like a minor point, but scholarship embraces a more logical approach than philosophy, philosophers can and have believed mutually exclusive things before, and while scientists and scholars also do this, it is more common among philosophers.

My point is they spent more time thinking and less time fighting.

 

Call it whatever you want. Its all semantics really.

[Stinghen]

I know I said I retired from this discussion, but I'll offer just one more reply

 

Wooot? No it wasn't. That's the point.

Also why it should be?The metaphysical works with rationality with a great difficulty.Rationality is connected with the intellect ,which has nothing to do with esotericism and mysticism to which force sensitivity is connected.

Also who you are you to say that when the galaxy is handled by jedi ,it is handled right and when it is handled by sith it is handled by the wrong hands.?Don't forget the Dark Side is legitimate part of the Force.Do you know that the Force,not only the Dark Side was in favour of the Sith imperative-the goal of the Rule of Two?The goal of Bane.

 

You are looking at this from an outsider point of view. The Force is, from the point of view of our real world, merely an esoteric thing. But from the point of view of the Jedi, it was not. It was a real thing. It may not have been scientifically understood from the beginning by the Jedi, but it was definetly a real and observable thing. And how does any belief in esoterism preclude any form of rationality? Every religion, even the most radical ones, have a rational, logical and philosophical basis, which is not rotten at its core, despite beliefs in the occult or dogmatic events. Take away the mythical trappings and you have a basic code of conduct that is fundamented on morally sound behaviour.

 

By the way, the Jedi Order sprung from philosophical considerations into the practices of the Jedaii Order, which led to the first war amongst Force-users, the Force Wars. So it was, yes, founded on philosophical concepts involving rationality.

 

And here's what - the Jedi's very code of conduct precludes a galaxy "handled by the Jedi". What I said was that, by their innate power, whenever the Jedi Order single-mindedly set their will to something, they could sway the entire galaxy. Not that they "handled the galaxy right". And it seems to me fanboyism has twisted about your own grasp of morality, if you think the Sith have it right when it comes to "handling the Galaxy". They're natural tyrants, oppressive beings by their very approach to how power should be treated and exercised. Even your hero Revan was that much of a tyrant, Force-choking his underlings on a whim, slashing off the jaw of his second, things like that. The Sith are awfully cool, I think so too. But if you do not condemn their actions or do not perceive them for what they are, then there's something wrong with you

 

And when you say the Force was in favour of the Dark Side, read some more on Darth Plagueis, where he speaks of his perceptions on how the Force always opposes the attempts to twist it by Dark-siders.

[BradTheImpaler]

Carth Onasi wasn't a Force User, therefore wasn't as open to Darkside Corruption (he could still be corrupted but not by himself).

 

Of course he wasn't, but that completely misses the point.

 

The Jedi were corrupted by their passions, that is why Revan was able to turn them into Sith.

 

They didn't become Sith simply because they were passionate defenders of the Republic, though. There's a lot more to it than that (Atton Rand in KOTOR 2 talks about how they were captured by elite units and taken certain places to be turned). If passion was a problem for them its because it wasn't directed rationally.

 

They started out filled by eagerness to defend the Republic, and ended up trying to destroy it. It was a curious path, their passion for defending the Republic made them aggressive against the Mandaloreans, their aggressiveness brought in the Darkside, the Darkside twisted how they perceived the Republic (weak mostly), and so to save the Republic they went to war with it's government (they still believed they were in some way protecting it). When the Republic resisted they destroyed key planets (Telos and it's droid factories for example), and the more they fought the less they cared about collateral damage.

 

Did it? Then they lost control of themselves and lost sight of their goals. It's not being passionate itself, but the way this was manipulated by certain people, and perhaps a weak will too easily driven into a blind frenzy for power, that was their problem.

 

But even at their worst they still beleived they were going to transform the Republic and Save it, of course their definition of saving it was twisted and rotten, but they were still driven by their passion to save their civilisation.

 

True enough, but there was more than passion involved. There was manipulation by Revan who was under the Emperor's control, at first. It's not as simple as "being passionate = dark side = evil". That was the basic question I had in mind: Can a person be rationally passionate (i.e. angry yet rational about it) or are the two mutually exclusive? Sometimes it seems it might be perfectly rational to be angry, and as long as you stay rational in directing your anger, you stay in control.

 

To be willing to use the dark side occasionally while not relying on it entirely shows a lot more strength of conviction and character (which can be good if used for the right reasons) than to run away from it entirely because you are weak-willed and fear it will corrupt you. If anything, the latter shows more signs of corruption because it shows fear that one can't use such power sparingly.

[BradTheImpaler]

And when you say the Force was in favour of the Dark Side, read some more on Darth Plagueis, where he speaks of his perceptions on how the Force always opposes the attempts to twist it by Dark-siders.

 

Just a quick point because I like this thought: This is exactly why Traya hated the Force. She saw it as using people for its own purposes "while countless lives are lost". Of course she went far beyond trying to twist it to her will and decided it should just be somehow destroyed outright. Other Sith might have a similar view but try to "twist the Force" rather than destroy it.

[Beniboybling]

Every religion, even the most radical ones, have a rational, logical and philosophical basis, which is not rotten at its core, despite beliefs in the occult or dogmatic events. Take away the mythical trappings and you have a basic code of conduct that is fundamented on morally sound behaviour.

But can the same really be said of the Jedi? They are not allowed to love or experience any kind of strong emotions, the Sith must be destroyed not because of their morality, but simply because they use the dark side, and in general their philosophy seems quite nihilistic in the way in which they disregard their lives as having any value. By being selfless they essentially destroy the person.

 

In the end, 'morality' is simply subjective opinion. There is no such thing as 'morally sound behaviour' only what you think is morally sound behavior. Logic and morality can therefore only go so far, because in terms of morality there is no right or wrong, just what you think is right or wrong.

 

Regardless I'm at lost as to what your overall point is.

[Beniboybling]

True enough, but there was more than passion involved. There was manipulation by Revan who was under the Emperor's control, at first. It's not as simple as "being passionate = dark side = evil". That was the basic question I had in mind: Can a person be rationally passionate (i.e. angry yet rational about it) or are the two mutually exclusive? Sometimes it seems it might be perfectly rational to be angry, and as long as you stay rational in directing your anger, you stay in control.

 

To be willing to use the dark side occasionally while not relying on it entirely shows a lot more strength of conviction and character (which can be good if used for the right reasons) than to run away from it entirely because you are weak-willed and fear it will corrupt you. If anything, the latter shows more signs of corruption because it shows fear that one can't use such power sparingly.

Indeed, can't one draw on positive passions i.e. love to draw on the light side? Is that not a positive emotion? One of the most important aspects of drawing on the light seems to achieving calm, serenity, while drawing to draw on the dark side is to embrace raw, chaotic emotion.

 

But can't one, with practice, remain calmly in control of one's emotions? Seems logical. And if so a Jedi could potentially use the dark side without impunity, is this not what Mace Windu does when using Vaapad.