In 'The return of the jedi', luke is told over and over again that he has to kill his father. But he ultimately makes the choice to not kill his father even if it means his torture and death, an act which reawakens the good within his father. His father saves his life. Luke didn't subvert his father and that meant that there was a return of the jedi. I think Richard is right about the sequel trilogy but Lucas was onto to some deeper patterns then his followers.
But he's not right about the sequel trilogy, at least not with that specific example. The books were not in the burning building, Rey took them with her, preserving them. The whole "kill the past" thing was Kylo Ren's point of view, and he was the villain (until he dropped that point of view, embracing and accepting his father as a part of being redeemed). HOWEVER, I'm just talking about that specific example. There might be a case to be made about the theme put to words in Yoda's line "We are what they grow beyond." Referring to students growing beyond their teachers. But even that had nothing to do with "killing and supplanting the father", but more taking what their teachers impart on them and growing forward, adding to that collective knowledge. (This has nothing to do with the quality of the sequel trilogy, personally I'm not a fan, but I am a stickler for getting facts straight.)
the OT i always understood with the prequels supplementing that Luke broke the cycle and recreated the old and merged it with the new. That's the main reason i have with the sequels rehashing the rebellion 2.
"Star Wars is all about you have to kill your father and take his place" How to tell me in one sentence that you've never watched Star Wars and only know it's plot from like, a single meme.
There is definitely the trope of subversion in star wars where the old is displaced by the new, but it seems like there are two other thematic elements (likely only inchoate - Lucas wasn't a particularly deep thinker). First is the idea of protestant purification (I don't mean that outrightly derogatorily). At least in the Jedi, it's about returning to a purity that was contained in the seed (the Jedi have become corrupt and therefore guys like Qui Gon Gin are reluctant but enlightened rebels still within the system). The other is an almost hegelian sublation where something is left behind and something retained. Yes, the books were burned (even though we are led to believe they were actually somehow saved from the fire..idk), but the teaching LIVE in the Jedi as taught in some more PURE fashion, not bogged down by dogmatism. And then thirdly there is the more subversive element you refer to. I don't endorse any of these three as good patterns, but there is something in the confusion of all three, their mixture, that allows for a narrative gymnastics by those who are more invested in one form or the other.
Protestant Purification a la Qui Gon and the "corrupt Jedi" is not a theme of the prequels. This is a misreading of the trilogy and is a fabrication of fans and Dave Filoni. George never said anything of the sort and only the most uncharitable interpretation and straight up ignoring some dialogue in the prequels, deleted scenes, and TCW can leave you with that conclusion
I can disprove this entire theory wrong about starwars. The prequel trilogy was written and directed by George Lucas. The republic is the government fighting the rebels. And the republic wins although changes to the empire. Not because it was supposed to but because a tyrannical manipulative leader took power from the state. In short if what he is saying is to be believed then Palpatine was the good guy. This is not at all what George Lucas set for the story. He is the bad guy. You cannot dispute this in any capacity he really does not understand starwars. It is a story that repeats good triumphs over evil. The sins of the parent are redeemed by our children. George Lucas said so himself. And I think he knows his story and themes a lot better than someone who is ignoring his personal work.
Interesting point about the prequels. I'd have to think more to see if Rohlin's argument applies. Thanks for the comment. I don't think Rohlin is necessarily speaking to the themes of good versus evil, just like the survival of the species is neutral, only concerned with the one that survives, whether it's the good one or not. In this sense the prequels follow the myth of evolutionism in that the old order of the Republic is overthrown and disintegrated, its pieces reintegrated by the new empirical order. These are my initial thoughts anyway.
Classic examples space and time according to Matthieus book. “Out with the old - in with the new” = Renewal “Building on what came before” = Work / Creating Space
"You have to kill your father and take his place" this is objectively untrue and a terrible reading of that scene. The point was Luke's masters, fate, and the Force itself were all conspiring to bring him to that moment. To put Luke into that room so he could win that fight. Luke was told repeatedly throughout his training that Vader would have to be killed and the dark be removed. He builds this into his identity as a Jedi. That he needs to find this man and kill him. But when the moment comes and Luke's entire hand has been played and won, he lets Vader live. He chooses to allow Anakin's redemption. The clip you played as he went out of his way to incorrectly interpret this scene for the sake of making a dumb philosophical point is the very scene were Luke does exactly the opposite of the point being made. That's the scene where Luke allows Vader to live. That's the scene where the old and the new go together to face the problem. In the end it's actually the old way, the father Luke has to kill because "Star Wars is all about like you have to kill your father and then like take his place" that kills Palpatine and ends the tyranny of the Empire. "This is what happens in the original trilogy" no. No it isn't.
This is a very good point, and I don't really disagree with it. That inversion of the basic "Hyperion" pattern at the end is really beautiful, however I don't think it really steps outside of the boundaries of the pattern. The old order is overthrown (and the old order is always overthrown with help from something within the old order) and the new takes its place.
Okay so not exactly true. The point of starwars is that good must triumph over evil or all of life will cease to be. It isn't about subverting the old. If you need a clear example of this in all forms of starwars media pick any there is a set of ground rules which cannot be broken. The whole Jedi vs sith debate is the loss of one self for the greater good be it for everyone else or oneself. Sith lose themselves to their own egos and are consumed by their power. The Jedi kill their egos and thus lose sight of themselves. There is no "the new must subvert the old" if you notice starwars does the exact opposite in this thinking. The galactic Republic was for the betterment of everyone. The empire services to the few the empire there fore is not a good system and thus the force sets it's destruction in motion. This then restores the republic to a new and better state. The separatists tried to break off from the republic as a ploy from the sith and the force knowing who and why some factions wanted freedom from the republic refused to allow these conditions to occur. The new gets subverted by the old as again that's not the purpose of starwars. It's nature vs nurture. And nature always wins. Or at least it should. Everyone is to a degree good. This is why there is no alignment chart just dark side and light side. There is no yin yang thing it's just the force playing god. In theory the force technically is a symbiotic while also parasitic entity. It despises sentience and would rather all obey the cosmic will to encourage and flourish all life. But as sentients have free will it has to manipulate the environment for this enhanced growth. There is a man who goes into extensive detail about the origins of starwars it's themes it's axioms and such. Disney starwars to a degree listened to this but the truth is they mostly ignored the central themes of redemption, for the greater good, and that a primordial god has your best interests at heart. Kotor 2 exemplifies the aspect of technically the force being the definition of the rule of 2 as the sith were not wrong. One person serves the will of the force and no other means the force need not worry about others destroying the face of the galaxy and causing war (ie the sith like Darth sideous). It isn't too hard to understand. George never says evolution is bad he just says that when we let our pride, fear and hate guide us we bring nothing but pain, suffering and destruction. This is why the dark side is near impossible to control. If one could bring themselves back from the brink and turn it off and on harnessing that hate and doing good the force would still mark them for death. Legends and Canon. There is no safe "this is how the force works" as we can only go off the basis of what we understand and are given. But in short, no the idea it's the subversion of what is old or new is not how starwars works at all. It is simply what the force deems is required for life to flourish. If the new way is better then so be it. If the old way is best then it will return the status quo. You can't argue that it's just get rid of the old as again the bad guys rarely if ever win and since most of the time change is caused by the dark side for the worse it's not the case. You can disagree but again take it from the timeline from legends or canon you notice that the galaxy almost always goes back to a status quo before some dark siders decide to stir up trouble.
In Greek myth, killing dad is mandatory for the king of the gods. In the other myth, the Son gets sacrificed to appease his Father. As far as I can tell, Odin and Thor are mostly OK. At least we didn't stuck with all the semen-eating stuff from the Egyptians.
Excelemt points! We are just starting to recover from this narritive through postnmodermism which is also seen somewhat in niche theory (somewhat modefying and nuancing 'survival of the fittest'). However you can definately see the dogmatic Evolutionists like you've said through 18th C philosophy carried out through their disciples and contimued through the new aetheists et al. building a world of revolution and domination through evolutionist theory. The challenge will be what will evolve to out compete it 😉.
Hi I also cannot listen to a comprehensive idea and will clutch to anything that I can to refuse a small point of it while ignoring the bigger picture being described.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch the full conversation with historian Richard Rohlin - ruclips.net/video/9LiR0TN0sfA/видео.html
In 'The return of the jedi', luke is told over and over again that he has to kill his father. But he ultimately makes the choice to not kill his father even if it means his torture and death, an act which reawakens the good within his father. His father saves his life. Luke didn't subvert his father and that meant that there was a return of the jedi.
I think Richard is right about the sequel trilogy but Lucas was onto to some deeper patterns then his followers.
Good point. Thanks for the insightful comment.
But he's not right about the sequel trilogy, at least not with that specific example. The books were not in the burning building, Rey took them with her, preserving them. The whole "kill the past" thing was Kylo Ren's point of view, and he was the villain (until he dropped that point of view, embracing and accepting his father as a part of being redeemed). HOWEVER, I'm just talking about that specific example. There might be a case to be made about the theme put to words in Yoda's line "We are what they grow beyond." Referring to students growing beyond their teachers. But even that had nothing to do with "killing and supplanting the father", but more taking what their teachers impart on them and growing forward, adding to that collective knowledge.
(This has nothing to do with the quality of the sequel trilogy, personally I'm not a fan, but I am a stickler for getting facts straight.)
And yeah I'm just "um, actually"ing the conversation with nerdy nitpicking, but I do agree with the larger points about the "myth of evolutionism".
He's not told to kill his father he's told to confront him
@@vintifada7115
From "The Return of the Jedi"
Luke:
I can't kill my own father.
Obi-Wan:
Then the Emperor has already won. You were our last hope.
Star Wars isn’t about the new replacing the old, but the restoration of the older good order
the OT i always understood with the prequels supplementing that Luke broke the cycle and recreated the old and merged it with the new. That's the main reason i have with the sequels rehashing the rebellion 2.
"Star Wars is all about you have to kill your father and take his place"
How to tell me in one sentence that you've never watched Star Wars and only know it's plot from like, a single meme.
There is definitely the trope of subversion in star wars where the old is displaced by the new, but it seems like there are two other thematic elements (likely only inchoate - Lucas wasn't a particularly deep thinker).
First is the idea of protestant purification (I don't mean that outrightly derogatorily). At least in the Jedi, it's about returning to a purity that was contained in the seed (the Jedi have become corrupt and therefore guys like Qui Gon Gin are reluctant but enlightened rebels still within the system).
The other is an almost hegelian sublation where something is left behind and something retained. Yes, the books were burned (even though we are led to believe they were actually somehow saved from the fire..idk), but the teaching LIVE in the Jedi as taught in some more PURE fashion, not bogged down by dogmatism.
And then thirdly there is the more subversive element you refer to. I don't endorse any of these three as good patterns, but there is something in the confusion of all three, their mixture, that allows for a narrative gymnastics by those who are more invested in one form or the other.
Thank you for the detailed comment. Fascinating points.
Protestant Purification a la Qui Gon and the "corrupt Jedi" is not a theme of the prequels. This is a misreading of the trilogy and is a fabrication of fans and Dave Filoni. George never said anything of the sort and only the most uncharitable interpretation and straight up ignoring some dialogue in the prequels, deleted scenes, and TCW can leave you with that conclusion
I can disprove this entire theory wrong about starwars. The prequel trilogy was written and directed by George Lucas. The republic is the government fighting the rebels. And the republic wins although changes to the empire. Not because it was supposed to but because a tyrannical manipulative leader took power from the state. In short if what he is saying is to be believed then Palpatine was the good guy. This is not at all what George Lucas set for the story. He is the bad guy. You cannot dispute this in any capacity he really does not understand starwars. It is a story that repeats good triumphs over evil. The sins of the parent are redeemed by our children. George Lucas said so himself. And I think he knows his story and themes a lot better than someone who is ignoring his personal work.
Interesting point about the prequels. I'd have to think more to see if Rohlin's argument applies. Thanks for the comment.
I don't think Rohlin is necessarily speaking to the themes of good versus evil, just like the survival of the species is neutral, only concerned with the one that survives, whether it's the good one or not. In this sense the prequels follow the myth of evolutionism in that the old order of the Republic is overthrown and disintegrated, its pieces reintegrated by the new empirical order.
These are my initial thoughts anyway.
Exactly right
Classic examples space and time according to Matthieus book.
“Out with the old - in with the new” = Renewal
“Building on what came before” = Work / Creating Space
Lol, Richard is gonna need to address this at the Summit. His most controversial take yet
Now that would make for a lively Q/A session.
"You have to kill your father and take his place" this is objectively untrue and a terrible reading of that scene. The point was Luke's masters, fate, and the Force itself were all conspiring to bring him to that moment. To put Luke into that room so he could win that fight. Luke was told repeatedly throughout his training that Vader would have to be killed and the dark be removed.
He builds this into his identity as a Jedi. That he needs to find this man and kill him. But when the moment comes and Luke's entire hand has been played and won, he lets Vader live. He chooses to allow Anakin's redemption. The clip you played as he went out of his way to incorrectly interpret this scene for the sake of making a dumb philosophical point is the very scene were Luke does exactly the opposite of the point being made. That's the scene where Luke allows Vader to live. That's the scene where the old and the new go together to face the problem. In the end it's actually the old way, the father Luke has to kill because "Star Wars is all about like you have to kill your father and then like take his place" that kills Palpatine and ends the tyranny of the Empire.
"This is what happens in the original trilogy" no. No it isn't.
Well written. Thanks for the comment.
This is a very good point, and I don't really disagree with it. That inversion of the basic "Hyperion" pattern at the end is really beautiful, however I don't think it really steps outside of the boundaries of the pattern. The old order is overthrown (and the old order is always overthrown with help from something within the old order) and the new takes its place.
Okay so not exactly true. The point of starwars is that good must triumph over evil or all of life will cease to be. It isn't about subverting the old. If you need a clear example of this in all forms of starwars media pick any there is a set of ground rules which cannot be broken. The whole Jedi vs sith debate is the loss of one self for the greater good be it for everyone else or oneself. Sith lose themselves to their own egos and are consumed by their power. The Jedi kill their egos and thus lose sight of themselves. There is no "the new must subvert the old" if you notice starwars does the exact opposite in this thinking. The galactic Republic was for the betterment of everyone. The empire services to the few the empire there fore is not a good system and thus the force sets it's destruction in motion. This then restores the republic to a new and better state. The separatists tried to break off from the republic as a ploy from the sith and the force knowing who and why some factions wanted freedom from the republic refused to allow these conditions to occur. The new gets subverted by the old as again that's not the purpose of starwars. It's nature vs nurture. And nature always wins. Or at least it should. Everyone is to a degree good. This is why there is no alignment chart just dark side and light side. There is no yin yang thing it's just the force playing god. In theory the force technically is a symbiotic while also parasitic entity. It despises sentience and would rather all obey the cosmic will to encourage and flourish all life. But as sentients have free will it has to manipulate the environment for this enhanced growth. There is a man who goes into extensive detail about the origins of starwars it's themes it's axioms and such. Disney starwars to a degree listened to this but the truth is they mostly ignored the central themes of redemption, for the greater good, and that a primordial god has your best interests at heart. Kotor 2 exemplifies the aspect of technically the force being the definition of the rule of 2 as the sith were not wrong. One person serves the will of the force and no other means the force need not worry about others destroying the face of the galaxy and causing war (ie the sith like Darth sideous). It isn't too hard to understand. George never says evolution is bad he just says that when we let our pride, fear and hate guide us we bring nothing but pain, suffering and destruction. This is why the dark side is near impossible to control. If one could bring themselves back from the brink and turn it off and on harnessing that hate and doing good the force would still mark them for death. Legends and Canon. There is no safe "this is how the force works" as we can only go off the basis of what we understand and are given. But in short, no the idea it's the subversion of what is old or new is not how starwars works at all. It is simply what the force deems is required for life to flourish. If the new way is better then so be it. If the old way is best then it will return the status quo. You can't argue that it's just get rid of the old as again the bad guys rarely if ever win and since most of the time change is caused by the dark side for the worse it's not the case. You can disagree but again take it from the timeline from legends or canon you notice that the galaxy almost always goes back to a status quo before some dark siders decide to stir up trouble.
Thank you for the detailed response.
In Greek myth, killing dad is mandatory for the king of the gods. In the other myth, the Son gets sacrificed to appease his Father. As far as I can tell, Odin and Thor are mostly OK. At least we didn't stuck with all the semen-eating stuff from the Egyptians.
Excelemt points! We are just starting to recover from this narritive through postnmodermism which is also seen somewhat in niche theory (somewhat modefying and nuancing 'survival of the fittest'). However you can definately see the dogmatic Evolutionists like you've said through 18th C philosophy carried out through their disciples and contimued through the new aetheists et al. building a world of revolution and domination through evolutionist theory. The challenge will be what will evolve to out compete it 😉.
Thanks for the comment!
@@DerekJFiedler thanks for your work. really enjoying what you do. God bless you.
@@QuaZamp I am glad that it is useful. Thanks for your support.
No, evolutionary biology is not a narritive.. LOL
They made the distinction at the beginning they’re talking about a modern approach to human history, not the biologic evolutionary process.
Hi I also cannot listen to a comprehensive idea and will clutch to anything that I can to refuse a small point of it while ignoring the bigger picture being described.