Even if master yoda had remained on his planet and never joined or spoken to a member of the order, as long as his skills and mastery of the force remained the same I would still call such a person a Jedi.
I am talking about a group of monks who train in solitude their whole lives to understand and master the force.
We can play dress up with names all day, but force mastery is what I am interested in.
If we use the oxford dictionary to define Jedi:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/Jedi?q=Jedi
Jedi: Anyone with special privileges or supernormal powers reminiscent of a Jedi
That's the definition I use.
Brenna wrote:
maynoth wrote: How many atheist popes, cardinals and priests have you heard of?
How many knights (in the context of medieval times) couldn't hold a sword?
How many magicians do you know who can perform no magic tricks?
Brenna wrote:
maynoth wrote: I define a Jedi as a person who devotes their life to the study and mastery of the force, but others may not, it seems to be open to interpretation.
Im not sure I agree. Devoting your life to God does not nessesarily make you a priest. Mastering the art of fighting with a sword does not make you a knight. Devoting yourself to helping in your community does not automatically make you a member of Rotary. Mastering card tricks does not gain you entry to the guild of magicians.
In my opinion, mastery or dedication to any skill does not automatically mean that you are part of a group or collective. Like anything, its a concious decision to accept and uphold the value system of any particular group, not just the ability to do the same thing as people within that group.
How many Christians are there who are not cardinals or priests?
How many swordsmen were there who weren't Knights?
How many magicians belong to the guild?
The ability to perform the "skill" is not the same as the acceptance of the "code" for lack of a better term.
