Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Contact Methods

  • Website

Recent Profile Visitors

1,666 profile views

Ping's Achievements


Mentor (8/10)

  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges

  1. That was a really weak article for many reasons, but I am glad that JKA got some love.
  2. He's nervous, but on the surface he looks calm and ready.
  3. When did you first start playing JKA? Have you played any 1v1 matches that involved a score, teamfights (TFFA or 2v2), CTF or siege, i.e. basically anything where you have losers and winners? Have you had any teachers that showed you how to properly play the game? I am just curious about your experiences with the game, that is all.
  4. Are you trying to say that having a high score on some noname modded FFA server is proof that you are not bad at this game?
  5. But whether or not other people perceive things as good or bad makes no difference for whether or not I should respect cultures or not. If I wrong others in such a way that they cannot retaliate (i.e. that there are no bad consequences for me), then nothing in the world can tell me whether or not I should do it if there is no good or bad at all. By saying that others think x is good or bad you make a descriptive claim, but you cannot then use that claim to say what I should or should not do (cannot draw an ought from an is). It is that, from what you have written so far, your views are self-contradictory and thereby incoherent. It seems uncharitable to call SW lore self-contradictory and incoherent, so therefore your views are not doing SW lore justice. Do I misunderstand your views? Well, after 3 pages and roughly 15 posts, I think you had enough time to make your point clear and resolve all the contradictions, and yet you have not. This is why I claim that what you think does not do SW lore justice. If there are rules in life, then it is either impossible or wrong/bad to go against them (otherwise they would not be rules). And in fact, if there are rules to life, then they are also universal because otherwise they would not be rules to life. If you agree to what I wrote, then you cannot claim that there is no good or bad. Even the sole claim that "good" is only good if some person or other thinks it is still contradicts the claim that there is no good or bad. But you make the even stronger claim that a galaxy in balance is best for life and so for everyone everywhere. Your contradiction comes about from trying to base your political tolerance on a very crude ethical relativism while also subscribing to gray jedi balance-is-best cosmology. They are mutually exclusive and you have to pick one. I would recommend the latter over the former.
  6. Why do you think your personal interpretation cannot be possibly 'invalid'? What you have said so far about the gray jedi is just plain incoherent and goes far beyond the textual evidence (be it dialogues or even the wookiepedia definition of a gray jedi) that you should not be surprised that people call you out on it. For example, the (1)-(7) that @@Boothand so very well summarized should make it obvious that one cannot hold all 7 claims without being incoherent. 1 contradicts 2, 5 and 7; 3 contradicts 5 and 6; and 7 pretty much contradicts them all. And even with your @@Cerez emendations to (1)-(7), then (1: nothing is ever good or bad) still contradicts (5: peace is good for a while, war good for a while) and (7: disrespecting cultures is bad). If there is nothing that is ever good or bad, then disrespecting cultures cannot ever be bad. Consider for example this claim: You do recognize an ultimate good, namely to keep the balance, because as you say, "life is at its most fruitful and at its best" that way. That is both a good that contradicts the claim that nothing is ever good or bad, right or wrong, -and- it is an ultimate good in exactly the same sense that the light/dark side envisions it, just that instead of having the light dominate or the dark dominate, you choose to have balance dominate.
  7. Yeah, as I mentioned previously, the only way for me to make sense of gray jedi is to think of them as light jedi without being affiliated with the jedi order, i.e. without having to follow precepts, be without passions or only using light side powers or whatever restrictions the order may have put on the jedi out there. They simply work on their own and (might possibly) differ in the means that they use to bring about a balance in the force (i.e. dark side powers, passions or whatnot), but the end goal is the same for them as for the jedi order, namely to establish and maintain balance in the force. This in turn I would then understand as fighting against evil, injustice and the dark side at large, based on the concept of the force as being a single, unitary thing. So gray jedi share the same end as the jedi order, but merely differ in their means.
  8. @@Boothand and I make basically the same points and the bottom line really is that @@Cerez either has to give up claiming that there is no right/wrong or she has to give up claiming that respecting traditions/non-interference is the right thing to do. You can't have both because that would involve a contradiction. As for what @@Boothand wrote, I will defend the gray jedi against the following: It is obvious to me (contra @@Cerez) that the balance is something the gray jedi think is good/right and should be promoted, achieved and maintained, while imbalance is bad/evil and should be avoided, shunned and mended. It is therefore right to do something to restore or maintain the balance and wrong to do the opposite. Having said that, if there is imbalance at any point in time, the world might be such that balance will be eventually restored, but (!) gray jedi can speed up the process. You don't really need gray jedi to do anything, but if they do act, then balance will be restored sooner than later, which is better in the overall scheme of things.
  9. I do not see how you can read that out of the quote. He makes it explicitly clear that "Malak is a tyrant who should be stopped." If someone should be stopped, then it is right for us to stop them. Jolee makes a very clear statement about what is right and wrong and what should be done in the face of an evil person. He doesn't say at all that Malak becoming a tyrant is insignificant: He makes it very obvious that "we're in for a couple of rough centuries" (i.e. it is bad for it to happen) if that happens and that he'd "rather not wait that long". He answers Carth's question with a resounding "yes, it is important." By claiming that side x has a right to exist, you make a right/wrong distinction. But if you claim that there is no such thing as right and wrong, then you cannot claim that side x has a right to exist. So therefore I cannot claim any tradition is worthy of respect if respecting others is not something that is right, and respecting others is not something that is right because there is nothing that is right and wrong. I do not understand what you mean. Either there is "universal truth" (whatever that means) or there is not, and if there is not, then whatever the gray jedi do or say is equally as unjustified as whatever the jedi or sith do or say. If there is such "universal truth", then one side is wrong and the other is right. But you want to say that the actions of one side (jedi) are not justified, because nothing can ever be justified, without wanting to give up the claim that any action of anyone else (gray jedi) are justified. Either doing x is something we should do, should not do or it does not matter. If you say that x is something that neither should nor should not be done because nothing should or should not be done, then whether x is done doesn't matter. But then you cannot claim that doing y (respecting tradition) is something we should do.
  10. I marvel at the fact that you can say this: And then immediately in the next sentence say something like this: ... without recognizing that the two contradict each other. This exact issue lies at the heart of what others and myself have raised against you previously, which you have yet to address. If 'there is no right and wrong', as you (falsly) claim with no arguments to back it up whatsoever, then the gray jedi cannot justify their actions to restore balance or to not permit the jedi to interfere in the politics of other places. If there is no right and wrong, then we cannot justify non-interference because you cannot say the jedi would be wrong in interfering while at the same time claiming there is no right and wrong. Again, this applies to traditions as well: If there is no right and wrong, then we have no reason whatsoever to respect other traditions. In fact, then it cannot possibly be wrong to disrespect other traditions.
  11. No it's not, but even if it were, it would be wrong of you to pretend to know that not having the Jedi interfere is good for others. In fact, if the Jedi should not interfere, then why should the other group that aims to eradicate the first group? This really hits the nail on the head. Gray Jedi know very well that interference with others can be good because they know very well that establishing and maintaining balance in the force is good. The Jedi know the same, they just disagree about what establishing balance consists in. But yeah, I really think the case for being a gray jedi is an extremely weak one. Maybe it would be much better if we were to define gray jedi in terms of just being light jedi who have left the order for reasons other than being violent and impulsive murderers.
  12. 1. I agree that all struggle leads to advances of various kinds, but if war is the only form of struggle they have, all progress will be aimed at destroying the other side and therefore will focus on instruments of war, be they weapons or propaganda. Instead of focusing on weapons, they could be focusing on other things instead, things that benefit both sides equally well without bringing about anyone's destruction. In fact, if they are at war, they will try to hinder the progress of the other by any means necessary, which means that manufacturing and research centers, including their top scientists, (both of which could be used for better things than the production and research of weapons anyways,) will be prized targets. 2. Even the sole scenario that there is a war going on between two groups is based on the assumption that there is peace and political stability within each group. Without peace and political stability in either group, there could be no war between them. In fact, defeating the other side is just a high-end goal that each group as a political unity has, and they could not pursue any high-end goals at all without peace and political stability. Making peace between them would merely increase the group size and make it possible to redirect their efforts from mutual destruction to other, less crude goals (like furthering mankind's knowledge of the world or taming suns). 3. They don't have to lose their identity if they suddenly were at peace, if by identity you mean something like being a martial people with a strong militaristic tradition. They can train, prepare, strategize and orient their lifestyle around war without actually having to fight anyone or anything. They can specialize without having to be involved in any current or even prospective wars; Sparta being the best historical example. In fact, all modern militaries are pretty much like that. 4. Even if they were to lose their identity if they suddenly were at peace, this would only mean that that which each group tries to achieve, namely wiping out the other, would bring about their own destruction. Self-destructive goals however are neither beneficial nor justifiable for those that have them. So they should give them up. 5. Again, even if they were to lose their identity if they suddenly were at peace, that does not have to be a bad thing. Traditional ways of living should not be cherished purely based on the fact that they are traditional, they should be cherished based on the fact that they are good. Sometimes they are not. In that case they should be abandoned. Identities are not sacred or permanent. 6. It is extremely implausible to claim that both groups need to have this war in order to "be strong in their environment and in the galaxy at large". A state that is at war wastes plenty of resources by attacking the other side instead of building up one's own economy, bolstering it through trade and developing technologies beneficial to all (e.g. nuclear plants instead of nukes). Furthermore, if both sides continue to fight each other so much, they will be easy prey for a third party to take over, which is what happened to the Persians and Byzantines in Asia Minor when the Arabs showed up in the 650s. It is far more plausible that neither group needs the war, but that all they know is that war. In that case, see point (4). 7. Even if the extremely implausible claim that both groups somehow need the war to not be consumed by their environment were true, then it would be very implausible that the Jedi would try to halt it by any means necessary because that would bring about the death of countless people, which is hardly something anyone would consider just. Since the Jedi are not supposed to commit injustices, they would try to find another way around it. If they don't, then they merely don't do that which Jedi are supposed to do.
  13. @@Cerez, to create peace and maintain justice is not the same as making everyone into Jedi. I do not know why you think the end goal for the Jedi is to make everyone into a Jedi. After all, the end goal for the police is not to make everyone into a police officer, it's merely to maintain a peaceful and just society so that others can flourish.
  14. It really depends on whether the force is a single unitary thing or whether there is a dark and light side of the force as two separate things with a common basis. The former would make the force like a sea, which can be turbulent with a lot of waves (dark side) or tranquil and flat (light side). The latter would make the force like atoms, which are both in fire (dark side) and ice (light side). Although ice and fire are still fundamentally atomic, we would not say that fire is hot ice and vice versa. They are two different things that merely have a common microstructure. But a sea is still a sea regardless of whether it is turbulent or tranquil, and a turbulent sea is still a sea. Bringing balance to the force if we understand the dark and light sides to be two different things with a common underlying basis would mean to make sure that both the light and the dark side are equally present in the galaxy in order to create wars, conflict, death and destruction or whatever. Bringing balance to the force if we understand the force to be a single unitary thing would mean to make the force 'balanced', i.e. to make it tranquil and calm. The dark side is then akin to chaos, i.e. the dark side and its harm results from the force being chaotic (or being used in a chaotic way), just like shipwrecks are caused by the sea being turbulent, whereas the light side would then be balanced in the sense of the force being tranquil, just like when the sea is quiet. Bringing balance to the force in this latter sense would then also mean creating the conditions for the development of civilization. Just as a quiet sea makes it possible for commerce to take place, for people to travel, for knowledge and books to disseminate, so too does peace and political stability make it possible for art to develop, culture and science to flourish etc. As for progress requiring conflict: Burning down the livelihood of your neighbours is the crudest form of conflict and this is especially so when it comes to murdering others or destroying whole planets. If people have peace, they can fight with each other over scientific theories, try to outdo each other in feats of engineering or compete in debates instead of having to serve as soldiers in war or be caught up in the fighting as innocent bystanders.
  15. I am not questioning whether or not being a grey jedi is a good thing or not, but I do wonder whether you are fully aware of the consequences of your position. Imagine you live in a republican galaxy with the jedi in a position of considerable political power and since both the jedi as well as the republic are supposed to care for the good of all and preserve peace, protect the innocents etc, everyone is living in a stable political system, people are fairly content with their lot and have enjoyed peace for many, many years now because the sith have been battled off to the fringes of the galaxy. Would you not see it as your duty to the force and to all living beings everywhere that balance be restored by arming sith militants, training dark jedi and having them attack various planets, incite wars and have them battle the jedi and the republic? Consider that this creates a lot of suffering for innocent bystanders. Imagine a different scenario: Given that dark jedi are prone to perform all kinds of atrocities against innocents, would you not see it as a good thing, in fact as your duty to the force to help them directly or indirectly perform such atrocities? E.g. help a dark jedi get consumed by anger and hatred so much that he destroys an entire village full of innocent people - with the eventual goal being the restoration of the dark side of the force to match the light side. I mean, the whole balance thing is all fine and dandy until you start thinking of light and dark in terms of good and evil, which is what they are (almost all the time) portrayed as in the movies. Also remember that for your position harmony is conflict, and a lack of conflict makes the universe much worse off because it means there is no balance in the force - I am wondering if a lack of conflict can mean a lack of warfare or a lack of dark jedi, and given that both can create needless suffering for a lot of people, I am wondering if reducing suffering as much as possible is a tenet that would go against what grey jedi stand for.
  • Create New...