Xanga Migration Post 2
I was making the rounds on the philosophy/religion blog circuit last night and came across several interesting posts. For some reason, looking to comment on IrContent by Doug Beaumont, I could not log in to Blogger (with my Google account), so I sought out other means of contacting him through his webpage, which ended up bringing me to some movie reviews he had written.
Admittedly, his movie reviews are not comprehensive evaluations of the quality of the film-making, the acting, the script, et cetera, but rather a rating system based on the message the film conveys via its in-story worldview and how well such "preaching" is executed. Its score, therefore, is based mostly upon how much the movie is in agreement with Christianity and/or solid, rational philosophy. But all the same, I had to jump in protest when he maligned the greatest series of movies ever made. Yeah, that's right, Star Wars. Not counting Episode I. He can bash that crappy piece of cinema all he wants.
While Beaumont is content to slam moviegoers and our current culture with not being able to spot the obvious logical fallacy in statements like "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" (in the words of Beaumont: "Really? Is that absolutely true?"), he doesn't seem to swallow the same pill and look a bit deeper or look at what Bible scholars would call "parallel texts," instances of the same event or expressed ideology in other parts of the Canon. In the Star Wars universe, such exposition is deep and woven throughout the story. Like the Bible, you can quote millions of different instances as "proof texts" while missing the big picture, leading to horrendous theology.
While I submit to the general view that both the original and prequel trilogies (or, as Star Wars geeks call 'em, the OT and NT--old trilogy and new trilogy, which is a parallel to Old and New Testament) are Western archetype stories with an Eastern worldview, this doesn't necessarily lead to such terrible things that Beaumont sees as he reads between the lines. For example, putting the above-mentioned quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi regarding absolutes into context, during the ensuing lightsaber battle with his former apprentice Anakin Skywalker-turned-Darth Vader, he states "The Sith are evil, Anakin. Can't you see that?" As Anakin responds that he views the Jedi as evil, Obi-Wan quips in a defeated, angry voice "Then you are lost!" Such a statement indicates that evil and good aren't nearly so relativistic as Beaumont seems to think Star Wars suggests, but more accurately that Obi-Wan's statement regarding absolutes was in response to Anakin saying "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." This is clearly not true. A disagreement regarding how the Galaxy ought to be run does not insinuate sides of moral realities, but political ideologies, which can be overcome for the betterment of such a Galaxy.
On top of this, Beaumont criticizes the Jedi for such sage wisdom as "fear of loss is the same as greed." This is most certainly true. While it is not a bad thing to have, it is unhealthy to fear lack. Fear leads to building up security, and the primary way to do this is, especially in a material realm such as our own, to have more of whatever it is you are afraid of losing. As you gain more, you start to have what's called a "hoard" and seeking out only your security leads to trampling over others. This is what we call greed. It is not at all beneficial. I think Beaumont equates a desire to maintain stability with a fear of losing such stability, which is categorically false; I do not want to lose my Star Wars movies, but I will live just fine without them, and I do not particularly fear losing them nor my extensive collection.
And it keeps getting worse! Somehow the reviewer thinks Anakin's only two options for worldviews in the Star Wars universe were either "stop caring about Padme and let her die" or "use the Sith ways to attempt to save her." Come now; how many times does Padme suggest asking Obi-Wan and the Jedi for help? Three times in Episode III. Or how about looking at the fact that Anakin seeking to save his wife is what ultimately leads to her death? Or the notion that, perhaps, if he had simply renounced ties to the Jedi and the Force, he could go off and live a normal life? Anakin had a myriad of choices, just as we do. The only problem is that he doesn't see them. It is perfectly practical for a Jedi to love. Indeed, in Episode II, Anakin says, "...compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life. So you might say we are encouraged to love." The thing Beaumont doesn't see is the problem with attachment. When you are attached to something, rather than accepting that some things may occur, it leads to fear, which leads to anger, which leads to hate, which leads to suffering. It is perfectly plausible to deeply love someone without being attached to them. You can desire them, but as soon as you start needing them, it's called a problem. As Christians, we are told to marry "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Reading the grammatical construction here, we can see that this "burn[ing] with passion" is equivalent to desiring the other person. However, we are also told that all we need and ought to focus on is Christ and Him crucified for our salvation. It is good for a man not to marry, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for a man to marry: just don't marry out of need, because it's unhealthy.
Stay tuned for a defense of the original trilogy next time...
