TV/Movies Megathread

[Eddie Teach]

I blame Toni.

[Syt]

Anakin Skywalker is prophesied to be the one that will save the galaxy

Nitpick: In the movies it's said that he would bring balance to the Force. If light wins, then it's not in balance. If dark wins it's not in balance. No force would technically mean that there's a balance.

Crazy theory, based on that: at the end of ROTJ there are two known force users: Luke and Leia. What if, in order to keep the balance, one has to join the dark side, the other the light side? What if Luke made the sacrifice of joining the dark side to spare his sister from that anguish?

What if that balance gets disturbed by new force sensitives arising again (Kylo Ren, Finn ...)?

Also: Finn uses a green light saber in the trailer - maybe a present from Luke (because where else would he get a light saber quickly)?

[Berkut]

Regarding TWD, I use spoiler tags, don't blame it on me!

Not blaming anyone - if there is a lot of discussion, eventually someone will forget.

[spoiler]So now apparently I know that Carls dad is going to get killed. That kind of sucks for me.[/spoiler].

No need to be draconian about it, but if there is going to be a lot of discussion about an ongoing series, better to be done in a separate thread that people can intentionally avoid.

[Eddie Teach]

[spoiler]So now apparently I know that Carls dad is going to get killed. That kind of sucks for me.[/spoiler].

[spoiler]No, Rick kills Ron's dad. I didn't think to spoiler it because it happened last season.[/spoiler]

[Berkut]

Anakin Skywalker is prophesied to be the one that will save the galaxy

Nitpick: In the movies it's said that he would bring balance to the Force. If light wins, then it's not in balance. If dark wins it's not in balance. No force would technically mean that there's a balance.

Crazy theory, based on that: at the end of ROTJ there are two known force users: Luke and Leia. What if, in order to keep the balance, one has to join the dark side, the other the light side? What if Luke made the sacrifice of joining the dark side to spare his sister from that anguish?

Not really crazy at all, it is an interesting idea, and one I've actually thought about.

Of course, the implication then is that as far as the force is concerned, balance is what is "good", not good.

So it values some good and some evil as being preferable to just all good - which is kind of an evil sort of position, philosophically. It certainly is not a good position.

[Syt]

But you could make the point that there can't be good without evil - in order to recognize something, we may need to know the antithesis. How do you define darkness or happiness without having a concept of its polar opposite? (Not saying it's impossible, but using the opposite is the fastest way of explaining it.)

[Berkut]

But you could make the point that there can't be good without evil - in order to recognize something, we may need to know the antithesis. How do you define darkness or happiness without its polar opposite? (Not saying it's impossible, but using the opposite is the fastest way of explaining it.)

Yeah, that is pretty much bullshit in my view.

You don't need some child dying because some evil person hates them in order to appreciate some other kid NOT dying, for example.

This become solipsism - the idea that what is "good" depends on there being actual "evil" simply re-defines "good" to be "some mix of good and evil", as if the actual values of "good" and "evil" have no weight in and of themselves.

"good" has positive value.

"evil" has negative value.

Therefore, the idea that we need some negative to counter the positive makes no sense. If we want a maximal possible "good" value, then ANY amount of evil is not desirable.

If you simply re-define "good" to be a zero net value, then we are no longer talking about "good" at all, but something else, which certainly is not "good".

[The Minsky Moment]

It is actually kind of an interesting idea - what happens to giant evil empire when evil progenitor is killed BEFORE evil empire is really defeated thoroughly?

You get space Khrushchev.
That's not a space station in the poster.  It's a giant planet-crushing shoe.

[garbon]

But you could make the point that there can't be good without evil - in order to recognize something, we may need to know the antithesis. How do you define darkness or happiness without its polar opposite? (Not saying it's impossible, but using the opposite is the fastest way of explaining it.)

Yeah, that is pretty much bullshit in my view.

You don't need some child dying because some evil person hates them in order to appreciate some other kid NOT dying, for example.

This become solipsism - the idea that what is "good" depends on there being actual "evil" simply re-defines "good" to be "some mix of good and evil", as if the actual values of "good" and "evil" have no weight in and of themselves.

"good" has positive value.

"evil" has negative value.

Therefore, the idea that we need some negative to counter the positive makes no sense. If we want a maximal possible "good" value, then ANY amount of evil is not desirable.

If you simply re-define "good" to be a zero net value, then we are no longer talking about "good" at all, but something else, which certainly is not "good".

Well in a system where their truly was 'no evil', I don't think 'good' would have any value. It wouldn't be a concept that could even be understood by someone in the always 'good' system.

[Malthus]

Anakin Skywalker is prophesied to be the one that will save the galaxy

Nitpick: In the movies it's said that he would bring balance to the Force. If light wins, then it's not in balance. If dark wins it's not in balance. No force would technically mean that there's a balance.

Crazy theory, based on that: at the end of ROTJ there are two known force users: Luke and Leia. What if, in order to keep the balance, one has to join the dark side, the other the light side? What if Luke made the sacrifice of joining the dark side to spare his sister from that anguish?

Not really crazy at all, it is an interesting idea, and one I've actually thought about.

Of course, the implication then is that as far as the force is concerned, balance is what is "good", not good.

So it values some good and some evil as being preferable to just all good - which is kind of an evil sort of position, philosophically. It certainly is not a good position.

Is the Force in the Star Wars universe some sort of concious entity like a god, or is it simply an unconcious natural occurance? If the latter, it may be unable to care one way or the other about whether it is overall good or evil. Its seeking of "balance" may have no more ethical weight than water seeking to flow downhill.

[Syt]

Yeah, that is pretty much bullshit in my view.

You don't need some child dying because some evil person hates them in order to appreciate some other kid NOT dying, for example.

This become solipsism - the idea that what is "good" depends on there being actual "evil" simply re-defines "good" to be "some mix of good and evil", as if the actual values of "good" and "evil" have no weight in and of themselves.

"good" has positive value.

"evil" has negative value.

Therefore, the idea that we need some negative to counter the positive makes no sense. If we want a maximal possible "good" value, then ANY amount of evil is not desirable.

If you simply re-define "good" to be a zero net value, then we are no longer talking about "good" at all, but something else, which certainly is not "good".

I'm not saying that "good" has zero value; let alone go into the hornet's nest that what's seen as good by one might be considered evil by someone else.

I'm positing that within the philosophy and world order of the fictional world that is Star Wars, long term balance, or a cycle, or an ebb and flow between contrarian ideas may be the driving concept of the universe, not one side or the other having a final triumph.

[Berkut]

Anakin Skywalker is prophesied to be the one that will save the galaxy

Nitpick: In the movies it's said that he would bring balance to the Force. If light wins, then it's not in balance. If dark wins it's not in balance. No force would technically mean that there's a balance.

Crazy theory, based on that: at the end of ROTJ there are two known force users: Luke and Leia. What if, in order to keep the balance, one has to join the dark side, the other the light side? What if Luke made the sacrifice of joining the dark side to spare his sister from that anguish?

Not really crazy at all, it is an interesting idea, and one I've actually thought about.

Of course, the implication then is that as far as the force is concerned, balance is what is "good", not good.

So it values some good and some evil as being preferable to just all good - which is kind of an evil sort of position, philosophically. It certainly is not a good position.

Is the Force in the Star Wars universe some sort of concious entity like a god, or is it simply an unconcious natural occurance? If the latter, it may be unable to care one way or the other about whether it is overall good or evil. Its seeking of "balance" may have no more ethical weight than water seeking to flow downhill.

Indeed - but that means that the "good" should not make any effort at all to accommodate this condition, but should in fact resist it.

The Force, in that case, does not become something to be revered, but just a tool to be used.

[Berkut]

Yeah, that is pretty much bullshit in my view.

You don't need some child dying because some evil person hates them in order to appreciate some other kid NOT dying, for example.

This become solipsism - the idea that what is "good" depends on there being actual "evil" simply re-defines "good" to be "some mix of good and evil", as if the actual values of "good" and "evil" have no weight in and of themselves.

"good" has positive value.

"evil" has negative value.

Therefore, the idea that we need some negative to counter the positive makes no sense. If we want a maximal possible "good" value, then ANY amount of evil is not desirable.

If you simply re-define "good" to be a zero net value, then we are no longer talking about "good" at all, but something else, which certainly is not "good".

I'm not saying that "good" has zero value; let alone go into the hornet's nest that what's seen as good by one might be considered evil by someone else.

I'm positing that within the philosophy and world order of the fictional world that is Star Wars, long term balance, or a cycle, or an ebb and flow between contrarian ideas may be the driving concept of the universe, not one side or the other having a final triumph.

Which is fine, but like I said, that means that the "Force" as the physical manifestation of this natural drive for balance, is in fact a somewhat malevolent force, to be resisted, and not at all revered, at least by those who desire "good", which presumably is what is best for the majority of sentient beings.

[Josephus]

Regarding TWD, I use spoiler tags, don't blame it on me!

Not blaming anyone - if there is a lot of discussion, eventually someone will forget.

[spoiler]So now apparently I know that Carls dad is going to get killed. That kind of sucks for me.[/spoiler].

No need to be draconian about it, but if there is going to be a lot of discussion about an ongoing series, better to be done in a separate thread that people can intentionally avoid.

Wait how do we know [spoiler]Carl's dad is gonna be killed?[/spoiler]

[Syt]

Which is fine, but like I said, that means that the "Force" as the physical manifestation of this natural drive for balance, is in fact a somewhat malevolent force, to be resisted, and not at all revered, at least by those who desire "good", which presumably is what is best for the majority of sentient beings.

I see your point - unless Jedi and Sith believe they can bend the Force to their side (order vs. chaos, passion vs. calm, etc.) forever. Or believe they must exist to counter the "other side." Which, in the case of the Jedi, might lead them to overzealously guard against all darkness or evil to enforce their view of a balance.

Actually, the abrupt rise of the Empire and almost complete purge of the Jedi might have been a reaction to the Jedi and their light side dominating for too long.

Jedi and Sith both use the Force, so I would presume the Force in and of itself is neutral by default. The question would be how much free will the people in the Star Wars universe have - do they choose their actions freely and therefore determine whether they use the Force for good or evil? Or is there some sort of natural or spiritual law that makes it so that if one side becomes too powerful the other side will rise to compensate?