RoR: Forum

Excellent & refreshing, Joe. Bravo!

Post 1

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:21am

The "turn the other cheek" reasoning causes a great deal more damage to the human psyche in the long run. The releasing of anger - albeit constructively - can better any medicine under the sun, or so the lyric goes.....Nicely put Joe...

Post 2

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 6:18am

Right on, Joe! Holding in one's rage doesn't make the anger go away, it only lets it fester until one's whole mind is poisoned.

Post 3

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 7:12am

Good article!
It is quite obvious that the star wars philosophy - is based on eastern mysticism. Buddhists love this nonsense. They preach that one should ignore reality, because it is all just in your mind. All the evils, demons and suffering in your life are simply created by your own negative emotions.

Post 4

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:53am

The article is good.

However, a friendly objection is that I can't find in the puppet's (Yoda's) sentence any proof of suggesting emotions as the "criterion" of action, even if you take the sentence literally.

I don't deny Yoda does so in other part of the movie, but then I think you better had chosen it instead.

Regards,

Jaume Folch

Post 5

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 3:52pm

Thanks for the comments/compliments, everyone.

Marcus, interestingly the newer Star Wars seems to be very into western religion. Like the virgin birth of anakin skywalker. I think the theme of anger being bad is a western idea too, although it does seem that eastern mysticism takes it more seriously.

Jaume, here's a friendly response. I don't think I mentioned anything about emotions being a criterion of action. And that wasn't the point, either. Yoda seems to say that anger is bad, even if you don't act on it. It leads you to the dark side just by having the emotions. That kind of stuff. The theme of acting on your emotions without thinking, which is also a popular one in that series, is grounds for an entirely different article. You're welcome to write it, if you'd like.

Post 6

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 9:02pm

What a great attention grabbing first sentence! I laughed out loud. Then you had me thinking. Cheers.

Post 7

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 12:02am

I'm sensing that there's a lot of pent up rage against Yoda out there. :)

Post 8

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 5:43am

Well, Jeff, Yoda is an obnoxious little troll who speaks bad English and gives bad advice. I can just imagine him going off on a "lust is bad" spiel if he saw Luke ogling Leia (before he realized that she was his sister).

Post 9

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 7:37pm

Joe
Thanks for the provocative article!
I do find it curious that when Ayn Rand created the ideal man that was devoid of pain, FEAR, and guilt it inspired us all, but when Yoda identifies the same character traits as a virtue it is a plot by the Vatican to undermine the use of REASON! :) Yoda was making it clear that emotions arise, but they must not be the sole criteria in forming responsive behavior or a substitute for rational analysis. I have always liked Star Wars for many reasons, including Yoda's proclaimation "Do or do not. There is no try." Perhaps in the context of a sci-fi heroic fable there will always be some Objectivst revulsion.

Dave

Post 10

Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 5:46pm

Thanks Matt.

Dave, I think you're interpreting Yoda's views in too positive a light. If he had said not to act blindly on your emotions, it'd be fine. But he specifically pointed out "negative" emotions, which he claim will lead you to the dark side. And he didn't say you could have them, just don't act on them. He said the emotions themselves will lead you to the dark side. Instead of teaching self-responsibilty and self-control, he taught repression and guilt.

And look at the movie. The "dark side" is a power the tempts you, and sucks you in. Your fear/anger/hatred draws you to it. The point is that the emotions themselves are a sign of moral weakness.

As for Rand's ideal men and women, I don't think the analogy holds. She didn't have her characters repress their "evil" emotions. Portraying a happy man is not the same as condemning anger. Yes living a life devoid of pain is a good thing, but not if it's accomplished through evasion of that pain.

You're quite right about the "Do or do not" line.

But all of this is kind of beside the point. The real point is that anger is a fine, and can be a good thing, even when you act on it. It's not some evil emotion that corrupts our souls.

Post 11

Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 7:02pm

Joe
I agree that anger may be a part of the emotional experience that we all have, but, like pain, it is something that is endured and overcome. Anger should be tolerated only knowing that it is the exception to an otherwise joyful existence. No repression, just a very efficient and healthy assimilation in progressing towards a rational end.

Yoda, in your context, was about to show a prospective candidate how to use the "force" and in doing so needed to ensure that this youngster wouldn't be irresponsible, aka feeling without thinking. He wasn't saying how to deal with anger per say, but rather pointing out that, blindly followed, the easy road to suffering is through anger.

This leads to my conclusion (and a long held view) that yoda and other good jedi knights are an embodiment of the highest objectivist values. they use wisdom and reason to shape their environment around them according to their needs (by using The Force, not force. ha ha!) They are the voice of knowledge and reason in the universe. Although their process is misleadingly cloaked in mysticism, they actually survive by purely rational process and function as a non-partisan political watchdog supporting individual rights.

may the force be with you (ha! just kidding!!! seriously, just kidding!!)
Dave

Post 12

Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 8:03pm

This discussion has been very helpful for me, as I have had to deal, in the last week, with the betrayal of an "ostensible" friend of mine. I have had no trouble expessing my anger, but it's always supportive to know that others of who have a similar view of life, integrity and truthfullness agree on how the reaction should be. Btw, and incidentally, he was a Christian minister.

Post 13

Friday, October 24, 2003 - 6:23pm

Heya Joe (or Linz). I've a question about anger and art.

Are the two exclusive from each other due to art's requirement to depict what's good and beautiful about life? Or can anger have a role in the artistic process as a means to protest against what's worst in life? (blind hatred, collectivism, tyranny, etc.) And are there aspects of the issue I'm leaving out?--(because I'm in a hurry and gotta run!)

I'm no artist per se, just delving.

Thanks!
J

(p.s. apologies for the "drive-by" flavor of this post)

Post 14

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 4:43am

Hello,

Several contributors to SOLO (such as Mr Perigo) are often critical of the trends in modern art and cinema. I would like to ask what you think the appropriate attitude is towards movies such as Kill Bill, where the "heroine" is motivated by immense anger towards those who have wronged her?

Matthew Humphreys

Post 15

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:41pm

Samerica, glad this all helped.

Jeremy, shame on you for hijacking this thread!

Newberry would be better for answering this one, but I guess I'll give it a try. First, I'd like to say that art isn't necessarily about what's good and beautiful in life. Art can convey lots of things, including anger. But you should keep in mind that art conveys a perspective on the world. It projects an image of the world, or life, or man, or something! And art screams out "this is important!". This is my view of it all!

So art can certainly convey anger. But I'm guessing that if you conveyed anger, it would be like saying "I'm an angry person. I feel anger towards the world and life". Art is like putting your views on a pedestal, and if you put anger on that pedestal, you're definitely sending a message there.

Now say you painted a scene where there was some kind of horrible act, and the people around were justifiably angry. Nothing irrational there, right? But the painting is conveying a deeper message. Life is full of thing worth being angry about. Being angry about those things is the important part of life.

I'm not saying it's impossible to incorporate anger into a piece of art without conveying some negative sense of the world. Seems like a challenge, but I'm not an artist.

So my answer is, yes you can combine anger with art. They're not incompatible at all.

Matthew Humpreys, shame on you too! Hijacking a hijacking!

Appropriate attitude? Hmmm. You have to be careful with that phrase. Your reactions to a work of art are very personal. I'd say the appropriate attitude is one of honesty. What'd you think?

I did see "Kill Bill", though. I can't really recommend it to others. The plot was paper thin (woman who nearly gets killed seeks revenge). The rest of the movie was just a blood bath. No character development. No real dialogue. Perigo would have had seizures!

Now the heroine being motivated by immense anger wasn't a pro or a con, as far as I was concerned. The movie didn't really dwell on it, and provide any support for it. It didn't convey the hatred...we had to imagine what the hatred would be like if we had gone through what she did.

So I think that movie was a poor example of how a movie portraying anger should be. My response to the movie was slight revulsion, with a lot of boredom. But I think the violence was supposed to be more shocking than it was. That's one problem with just going for "shock" value. The audience stops caring.

Post 16

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:17pm

Mr Rowlands, my apologies if you feel I'm hijacking the thread...thank you for your reply though, and I see what you mean about honesty being the appropriate response! :-)

And in all honesty, I have to admit I personally rather enjoyed the movie! I may well have been reading (or should that be "viewing"?) too much into it but there seemed to me to be a focus on *rational* revenge - e.g. The Bride's comment early in the movie to the effect that she lacked mercy and compassion, but not rationality, and the voice over later on to the effect that rational warriors have to be prepared to kill God and the Buddha if neccessary. I also thought there was a philosophical point about violence begetting more violence...

As for character and plot development, I would point out that Kill Bill vol 1 is only the first half of what was apparently originally intended to be one movie, so perhaps there will be some development in vol 2.

Thanks again!

Matt

Post 17

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 4:34pm

Matt and Jeremy, those were pretty relevant hijackings, and those are both topics I have been pondering often lately. Returning to Joe's article, I still don't think Yoda was advocating repression as much as endorsing rational examination IN SPITE OF strong emotional involvement. The negative emotions were weaknesses often exploited by the Dark Side, and Yoda identified that as an area of caution for the newcomer. Don't be emotionally impulsive in your actions, and don't run your life by your "feelings" alone. Sounds pretty objective to me. I am now wondering if my previous post caused anger and lead to repression (since it was, perhaps, ignored)? :)

Dave

Post 18

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 5:01pm

Matthew, not to fear. I was just kidding. Hijack away!

Dave, if you really want, we can have a thorough debate over whether Yoda was an advocate of reason or repression. I personally think the Jedi are a bunch of repressed altruists. They're not supposed to love, cause that could turn to fear or hate. They're not supposed to fear or hate. They're certainly never supposed to act on those emotions. And they seem to advocate determinism in that if you feel negative emotions, you'll lose your soul. They advocate letting go of your thoughts, and feeling your way to the solution. You can argue that the "feeling" of the force is some objective means of perception in that universe, but Objectivists always promote evalutating our senses, not just acting on them. And look at the events. Luke would rather die then attack the Emperor while angry. The Emperor gets all pissed when Luke successfully represses his emotions.

So we could pile up the evidence on either side, but probably it'll come down to what do you think George Lucas thought. Does it really matter? It's fiction. And it doesn't sound like we disagree on what's right and wrong.

Post 19

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 7:01pm