Sith

ZealotX wrote: I probably take more of a hardline against Sith Philosophy.

I would sum it up by saying it is the focus on the individual self even at the detriment of the collective whole.

Now I can't claim to know much about the Sith philosophy however it does sound much like the Anton LaVey path of Satanism. Which is not evil or detrimental.

However, my response is more to do with the making selfishness out to be evil and something that you do not have to have. I believe such a concept is flat out false. To be selfish is according to Merriam-Webster is: 1.concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2.arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
Link

These are not things bad in and of themselves. I will give you two example. I am someone that trains with firearms regularly and carries one daily. If a situation ever arose where I had to stop someone attempting to murder others I have to put my own safety first and those around me second. Why? Because if I am not careful with my own life and putting it over that of those around me I might die. And if I am the only armed defender in the area that means not only are the people around me now at the mercy of someone that I might have otherwise stopped. But that person might now be armed with my weapon. In short not being selfish about my wellbeing could cause more death than being selfish would.

The second situation is about your time and resources. You have to put your own health and even comfort above others. You cannot pour from an empty pot. Your time, energy, and resources are not infinite and if you fail to hold a reserve even at the cost of others you will burn out or be unable to care for yourself or others if hard times come. Basically, selfishness is a self-preservation tool that like any tool can be abused. But just because someone can use a hammer foolishly or even commit evil with a hammer it does not mean we toss out our hammers.

@Arisaig

I understand what you're saying. I addressed this in part.

The Jedi have a strong drive towards inclusion, incorporation, harmony, etc. They had reasons not to accept Anakin and had they not Anakin would not have had the power to then be seen as a viable tool of a darker, more insidious person. It is in our nature to be accepting and tolerant; even to our very detriment. I'm not saying change anything. You can't. By changing we would simply become more like the thing we were trying to get rid of. So no, I'm not trying to shoo people away or exclude them from participating on the site.

But with all due respect, I'm also not going to pretend that Sith "aren't really" Sith especially when they claim to be. If the person is "not really" a Sith then they should stop calling themselves that. Taking on an identity is dangerous. You become more like whatever you identify as. And if you water down the Sith identity people take on Sith values without equating them to anything detrimental. How long did it take before the Jedi recognized Sidious for what he was? They were part of the same system and co-existed for over a decade. It is part of the Sith nature to hide their presence amongst others. The first thing Sidious did with Anakin was to say that the dark side "wasn't really" bad (paraphrasing) to reduce the moral implications of making that choice. By the time Anakin was lured to the Dark Side he thought he was doing it for good. That is the deception of the Sith.

You quoted "A Je'daii" needs darkness and light. To me, this constitutes a Sith teaching because of the word "need". I would say a Jedi accepts that "there is" darkness and light. Without the two there is no balance, that is true. But the identity of the Jedi is NOT simply "good" and the Sith is not simply "bad". That view would be false and very dangerous. Many people think this because they do not yet understand duality. We both have dualistic natures. You cannot break down that duality into Jedi vs Sith. Evil is good for the individual doing it. A bank robber might "need" money to support his family. Robbing the bank is bad for the bank but good for the thief's family. And even if our money is taken the bank is insured and so the damage is spread out to the tax payers. But what would happen if bank robbery became normalized behavior? How much could the tax payers take before all the robbing was unsustainable?

I would say whoever first sparked the idea that the Sith here just have a different philosophy (and no I don't know what that is except what I responded to) is like Qui Gon Jinn. Was he a bad guy? No. Was he foolish? Not at all. He saw the potential of Anakin but not his future. The truth is that people are not labels. We don't know what will happen with people thinking for themselves. However, that doesn't mean that the Sith identity should shift or bend to match what people want to make it. What I accept is that people on or coming to this site want to have their own definitions of what "Sith" means. In my mind however, their definition doesn't affect mine. The fact that they're choosing the same word means they're trying change "it" to fit them instead of "it" changing them. But that.... in my humble opinion... is indicative of the arrogant thinking of a Sith. I accept that Sith in the movies are cool and there are aspects of the "individuals" that are alluring. But master Yoda would say that the dark side is seductive. But it seduces people, not the other way around.

ZealotX wrote: The first thing Sidious did with Anakin was to say that the dark side "wasn't really" bad...

Ignoring for the moment that you are quoting movie plots to describe real life, Many here do not believe "The Dark Side" of the Force is bad. In fact, light or dark, neither are good or bad. The duality that is described here is a false dichotomy. The force does not have "sides" and we are not creatures of "duality". The force is just energy, neither good nor bad. It is in what we do with that energy that matters. In this, emotions are the same way. No emotion can be characterized as good or bad. They are just emotions and anger and hate are just as necessary and capable of being used for positive benefit as benevolence and love. Once again, it is not the emotion that defines its place on some false scale of contrasts, its the way we utilize them. So given these concepts, Sith can be just as positive a force as Jedi.

ZealotX wrote: I probably take more of a hardline against Sith Philosophy.

I would sum it up by saying it is the focus on the individual self even at the detriment of the collective whole.

MadHatter wrote: Now I can't claim to know much about the Sith philosophy however it does sound much like the Anton LaVey path of Satanism. Which is not evil or detrimental.

What is Evil? I say satanism IS evil. I'm familiar with Anton LaVey and the church of Satan. However, there seems to be a... disagreement about what evil is. Evil is often shown in monstrous forms because it is an "exaggeration" of the inner desires or darkness of humanity. It is extreme by nature. So if you think about Hitler who is constantly used as an example of evil, what he did could objectively be called evil and yet, to him and all the people who supported him and all the people who carried out the orders, it... was.... "good". There are parts in the bible where the Israelites acted evil and it isn't depicted as evil because the behavior was "normalized". Everybody had some type of slavery. And whether it was beneficial to the slave or not wasn't as important as the fact that it was "good"/beneficial to the slaver owner. Now in hindsight even the Luciferian can look back and disagree with many of these past actions. But without foresight we're just all doing evil in different ways that future generations will judge. Be careful of anyone saying that their religion isn't detrimental. There's a difference between reality and the propaganda used to justify ourselves. Of all the names that one could use, why use the term Satan? In Hebrew haSatan means "the adversary". Adversaries are, by definition, detrimental.{/quote]

MadHatter wrote: However, my response is more to do with the making selfishness out to be evil and something that you do not have to have. I believe such a concept is flat out false. To be selfish is according to Merriam-Webster is: 1.concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2.arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
Link

These are not things bad in and of themselves. I will give you two example. I am someone that trains with firearms regularly and carries one daily. If a situation ever arose where I had to stop someone attempting to murder others I have to put my own safety first and those around me second. Why? Because if I am not careful with my own life and putting it over that of those around me I might die. And if I am the only armed defender in the area that means not only are the people around me now at the mercy of someone that I might have otherwise stopped. But that person might now be armed with my weapon. In short not being selfish about my wellbeing could cause more death than being selfish would.

Actually, they are bad because there is a false equivalence going on here. What's NOT bad is to be concerned about your self. What's NOT bad is seeking your own advantage, pleasure, or well-being. What's NOT bad is concern for your own welfare. Where it's NOT good is when it is "excessive" or "exclusive"; when you consider your own wants and desires and needs without any consideration of others. In your firearms example you're NOT being selfish at all because you said "BECAUSE [motive] if I am not careful with my own life ... people around me now at the mercy of someone that I might have otherwise stopped". So in the larger context your explanation is the same as a mother on a plane being told to put the mask on herself FIRST. That's not selfishness. That is a prerequisite for saving others. The difference is that someone who is selfish wouldn't care who got hurt and wouldn't be trying to save anyone. They would "shoot first and ask questions later" to preserve their own lives. If other lives were saved it would only be incidental. It is your intent that defines your actions. What you described is what a caring person should do because increasing the odds for yourself increases the odds of survival for those you're trying to protect.

MadHatter wrote: The second situation is about your time and resources. You have to put your own health and even comfort above others. You cannot pour from an empty pot. Your time, energy, and resources are not infinite and if you fail to hold a reserve even at the cost of others you will burn out or be unable to care for yourself or others if hard times come. Basically, selfishness is a self-preservation tool that like any tool can be abused. But just because someone can use a hammer foolishly or even commit evil with a hammer it does not mean we toss out our hammers.

Same thing here. I'm currently helping someone financially and it is extremely inconvenient and at times very frustrating. At the same time I have to balance my desire to help this person with limitations and restrictions.... with rules... so that I actually have something to give and so that giving doesn't become so unsustainable that the person I'm helping doesn't simply end up in the same situation they were in. It's not being selfish. It's being wise. I accept that different people have their own interpretations of good and evil but what I'm saying is that the Jedi were never some foolish group of people with no concept of self-preservation. So we can't concede a false premise that self-preservation or having your own will and desires is somehow "Sith". It's not. It's normal. What would be "Sith" would be doing this excessively or exclusively without regard for others. The hammer isn't Jedi or Sith. It's just a hammer. Just like a light saber isn't somehow morally conscious of its use. And Jedi don't go around tickling bad guys with feathers. So again, it's the "abuse" or extremity that makes it evil.

The Force is much like a coin. It has two sides, which we can define as "Light" and "Dark". You cannot spend just one side of a coin, so you must embrace both to be effective.

Real life Sith, I find, are just more ambitious. Take a look at their code (below). This is one translation of their code.



Notice, there is nothing evil about it. It thrives off amibition and personal betterment, and doing all this through the Force. The Jedi code is the same, if not more restricitive. We cannot write off the merits of the Sith code, but we can choose not to follow it. This is a choice given to the individual.

ZealotX wrote: What is Evil? I say Satanism IS evil.

There is ignorance, yet there is Knowledge. Perhaps do more research into this before making such a statement. (Only a Sith deals in absolutes, if we wish to continue down the cinematic narrative)

ZealotX to label an entire religion evil is not something I ill ever be ok with. Satanism in and of itself as practiced by LaVey is in no way evil. If you are only concerned with taking care of yourself that does not make you evil. Evil has a definition which is to be profoundly immoral. to arise from bad character or causing harm. Looking out for number one in and of itself does not meet any of those things.

To look out for only yourself does not somehow automatically make you a terrible person. Its not how I might act but that does not mean my judgement is the end all be all. Remember " Only a Sith deals absolutes"

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The first thing Sidious did with Anakin was to say that the dark side "wasn't really" bad...

Ignoring for the moment that you are quoting movie plots to describe real life, Many here do not believe "The Dark Side" of the Force is bad. In fact, light or dark, neither are good or bad. The duality that is described here is a false dichotomy. The force does not have "sides" and we are not creatures of "duality". The force is just energy, neither good nor bad. It is in what we do with that energy that matters. In this, emotions are the same way. No emotion can be characterized as good or bad. They are just emotions and anger and hate are just as necessary and capable of being used for positive benefit as benevolence and love. Once again, it is not the emotion that defines its place on some false scale of contrasts, its the way we utilize them. So given these concepts, Sith can be just as positive a force as Jedi.

Firstly, the mythology of the Star Wars movie plots are based on real life just like most forms of art are an expression.

Secondly, I started talking on the issue by saying "I". So I'm representing my own view of all Sith with deference to the views of others.

I didn't say the "Dark Side" of the Force is bad. The Force is like a battery. Every battery has a positive pole and a negative pole. Duality is polarity. However, we're talking about Sith and Jedi here. There is a distinction between the two that is no equivalent to the duality of the force. If it were not so there would be no such thing as a grey or dark Jedi. You would simply be something else if you were grey and you would be Sith instead of dark.

Sith teach full commitment to the Dark Side. But there really is no "dark side of the force" only a dark side of the force USER. There are tons of arguments about this. It is what it is.

Any true Sith will not walk the line between the dark and the light because it limits their power. They realize greater power through full commitment. Darth Bane is an excellent book to understand Sith philosophy.

Emotions are also like the force. They are points along a scale/range of feeling. Your reaction to someone dying... or your reaction to someone being enslaved... could be very negative and understandably so. However, the Jedi discipline is to control emotion so that thinking can be done with a clear mind; allowing clear actions that serve the greater good instead of the tendency of emotionalism to "feel better". Can an action be taken that makes you feel better AND accomplishes the greater good? Yes. But that is incidental.

A Sith might want to rule the world because they BELIEVE/FEEL that by doing so it would bring peace and therefore be ultimately beneficial to the greatest number of people.

But what happens when good people don't want to be forced into your agenda? What happens when there are rebels? How many millions of people need to die on your quest for peace? And is that conflict peaceful or is it simply more of the same? Sith teaching ALWAYS sounds good (to someone). Sith philosophy is never overtly evil or evil by design. It is simply evil in "practice". Jedi is a "way of life" or a "way of using these concepts". Sith is also a "way of life(although it leads to death)" or a "way of using these concepts".

If you call hate or any other emotion a "sith" thing IMHO you lose the identity of what really is Jedi and what really is Sith. Jedi have a different way of DEALING with hate. The way that Sith deal with hate is to use it for their own cause and in this way the RESULT is often destructive; either to the person, to others, or both.

ZealotX wrote: A Sith might want to rule the world because they BELIEVE/FEEL that by doing so it would bring peace and therefore be ultimately beneficial to the greatest number of people.

And that is for them to accomplish. If they do so, congrats upon them. There is nothing wrong with striving towards your dreams.

ZealotX wrote: Any true Sith will not walk the line between the dark and the light because it limits their power.

So anyone who doesn't strive for "unlimited power" is just a false Sith, a person claming the title for their own? We have quite a few here that have earned rank within the real life Sith community, and they didn't have to (I hope) kill to get there, or use force lightning.

In short, your definition of Sith is stuck in the mire of the SW mythos. Look around. There are many Sith here, some of which have commented on this very thread. Learn about them, maybe even from them.

MadHatter wrote: ZealotX to label an entire religion evil is not something I ill ever be ok with.

Well, he IS a Zealot, after all. And a HolySwordsman requires an Unholy enemy to fight.

@MadHatter

Go with me for a second.

Let's pretend (because that's what it would be) that there is a person on earth who considers themselves evil. Okay? Now, if this person created a religion for evil people like themselves would you then be okay with labeling it evil?

Again, what is evil? What makes someone a terrible person? Is it what they are? Or is it what they DO??

The COS is a cult that worships freedom. Is it evil? Freedom itself, as a concept is GOOD, not evil. However, freedom can be used to abuse others. Some people felt "free" to enslave others. If a person simply loves freedom would that make them special? or would that make them normal? Do you hate freedom? I love freedom too. Should I join the church of Satan? What is profoundly immoral about freedom?

In the bible (which I use only because of its relationship to Satan), Eden was the home of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. What did the serpent do that was evil? The serpent merely asked the woman what did God say about the fruit and then he said that if she ate the fruit her eyes would be opened and she would be like a god. So she ate the fruit and her eyes were opened and God said said they have become like us. So what it all a lie? Who was lying? Adam and Eve were "free" to eat from all the other trees. But they were not "free" to eat from this certain "set apart" one.

Evil has a reputation kind of like a boogeyman. It is intensely "bad" and "wrong". But if you lie, that's wrong. If you cheat on your taxes, that's wrong. The reputation evil has is an exaggeration of what evil actually is. And what it actually is never seems so bad because we look at it in small amounts. Do you know what creates cancer in the body? I believe it is what they call "free-radicals"... they are naturally occurring... not "bad" in and of themselves. But when there are too many what happens to your body? Death.

The same is true of the Sith whether we like it or not. In small doses they'll always seem fine. In fact, if I were to zealously debate this subject "excessively" people would turn against me and think I was the one who is bad. So therefore, how we define things has a lot to do with "excess" and imbalance. The reputation of evil is in reality an extreme state of imbalance. Which takes us back to the heart of your disagreement (at least my perception of it). To look out ONLY for yourself does make you a terrible person. But what you think of as "ONLY" isn't that. Do you drive?

Imagine driving a car and ONLY thinking about yourself. How long would it take before you crashed into someone? Imagine you're driving and you want to make a turn. There's a stop sign. Do you make the turn without consideration of traffic? No. It would threaten your own life to do so. It is a THREAT to your own life not to consider others. That's normal. It's not Sith philosophy to act normal. Sith philosophy would be to buy a semi truck so that if they want to turn everyone else will be forced to stop or crash into them. They seek power so that they don't have to stop. Stopping is playing by the rules. That's what normal people do. The rules are made to protect everyone. The sith is only looking out for himself so he doesn't care about someone else's rules. Those rules are chains and he wants the power so he can have the freedom to ignore them.