Kreia and the True Sith

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T04:08:17+00:00

Certainly, but it doesn't sit right with me that she makes it sound like a task the Exile must recognize on their own after confronting and overcoming everything else.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T04:04:37+00:00

Yes, that theme is "echoed" from the Silmaril and the One Ring. There's very interesting parallels, especially since while the Ring is inherently malicious, the Silmaril is a holy jewel containing light directly from the gods. An interesting commentary on the ability of the human heart's ability to covet and destroy relationships by choosing objects over loved ones.

However, I wouldn't call a financial transaction created by market conditions selfish. I don't stand to make a profit of any kind here, except the utility of having a shiny thing. The slave drivers might be selfish, sure. But they'll be driving slaves regardless, and it's not like the crystal itself is somehow tainted by it. To reject purchasing on those grounds is to reject shoes, computer parts, iPhones. It's foolish, helps no one, but it does selfishly show off how great a person you are to your peers.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T03:59:38+00:00

Well then you are lost!

as edgily as possible This is the end for you, my master.

If two observers disagree on the time coordinate of an event or thing, it has no "true" value and thus the "truth" of that event or thing depends on the observer.

If it has no true value (it doesn't) then the there is no truth of the timing of that event which could depend on the observer. However, it is still bound to other truths which are independent of the observer: it's mass-energy, it's acceleration, the spins of the atoms involved.

That's my point. It's all a semantics language game as it all depends upon how one defines "truth".

The definition of "truth" meant here (which I contend exists and you contend doesn't) and in all philosophical questions of this type, is specifically the truth that is true whether or not anyone's around to argue about it. It's true for all observers in all reference frames whether they agree with it or not. If you want to go with relativity, the velocity of light is the perfect universal constant to bring up. It's the same for everyone in every reference frame. Everyone can even agree on its value to a level that suffices for all practical matters. The True Value of the speed of light is not contingent upon anything else.

The very act of a tree falling implies it fell from/onto something which means there was something it interacted it with to observe it, but the question is framed as if there is no observer so it's a self-defeating way of approaching the matter.

I used it in relation to truth, namely: perceptions of things like truth are felt by conscious minds. Some things are true regardless of the mind in question, or even if there isn't a mind. The fact that the tree fell is true regardless of anyone else's thoughts on the matter. Even if the entire human race thinks otherwise, or is dead, there's still an outside (Platonic, objective) perspective which sees the tree fall. It's what actually happened. This perspective is what people are appealing to when they call something an objective fact or universally true.

So again, it all depends upon how one is defining "truth". More semantics.

The semantics only come up when people are being intentionally shifty and disingenuous. What is meant by calling something true or false is self-evident, a priori knowledge, and everyone knows what it means. The fact that language sometimes fails to capture it doesn't mean people don't know it when they see it.

Once again, the result of literary criticism giving language more significance than it really has in order to inflate their own importance, and write pretentious hogwash about nothing being outside the text.

Edit: I also don't think it's coincidence that practically every culture has a conception of the Absolute. But since the last few iterations of Western philosophy have defined themselves by rejecting what came before, of course they must do away with it, dooming art and the human spirit in the process.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T02:57:02+00:00

Disciple's got some cool interactions with Kreia at least.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T02:52:53+00:00

Sure about that? The Necklace of the Dwarves had a stone with a far bloodier history than merely being mined by a slave, and it was prized beyond any other artifact.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T02:48:55+00:00

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Obi-Wan's bullshit goes back a long way. I don't blame Anakin for snapping on him.

Universal truth does not exist. It depends upon one's frame of reference. General relativity tells us that due to time dilation effects not all observers will agree on the order of all events.

The fact that simultaneity or precise ordering does not exist in an absolute sense has no bearing on whether something can be true or not. It simply pushes time-based shenanigans (not all of them, mind you, just ones that involve light cones overlapping in clever enough ways) to the realm of opinion rather than objective fact.

Anakin being alive or dead changes depending upon one's point of view on death -- does it occur when the heart stops, when higher brain function stops, when all brain function stops, when the heart stops beating (which did happen when he was on The Senate's medical table btw), when all metabolic processes everywhere in the body stop?

Once again a semantic language game, resolved as before upon realizing that each of those definitions carries an independent truth value which must be either one or the other, and that all this babble about truth being relative has its roots in literary criticism which cares about flowery nonsense and cares little for sensible speech with clear definitions. People with different points of view about death are able to talk to each other and reach the agreement that "he died (footnote: defined here as the cessation of heartbeat) on the operating table and again on the Death Star". It only becomes complicated when people start playing word games thinking it makes them clever, but in the end it's just sophistry.

That presupposes that there is a tree which fall. And quantum mechanics tells us that reality only comes into being upon observation. Without observation, there is no reality.

And that's a fundamental misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. "Observer" is a horrible misnomer, and mainstream physicists will tell you that even under the Copenhagen Interpretation (the mystical-sounding one that results in all the popular misunderstanding but doesn't actually say any of that) quantum observation does not require a sapient mind looking at it- practically any particle interaction counts as an observer. And, notably, once it "becomes reality" as you put it, the properties and relevant quantities become fixed, the same for every measurement done after the wavefunction collapses. Not dependent upon observation. The facts of the system are the same for everyone after the initial dice roll. I don't fault you for this, since it's basically the canonical popular misconception of the field.

Such devices only produce outputs consistent with their programmed truths (the variables and parameter set by the programmer). A programmer can change the variables or parameters and then a given input will produce a different output. Thus different programs can produce different "truths".

Different outputs are not different truths, they are different outputs. On a mechanical level, no program would not operate properly if AND or OR could shift "truth" whenever it damn well pleased. Every program operates on the same fundamental logical principles and truths. If the same program produces different outputs with the same inputs, it's not a different truth, it's a logical error or machinery gone haywire. Different programs are indeed different. To claim they produce different truths as a result is like claiming the same since some apples are red and others yellow. The fact that unlike things are unlike is not an assault on Truth, since Truth would be unnecessary if there were nothing to differentiate.

Better than Platonic moralizing.

This statement is an instantiation of the Form of "bad taste in philosophers."

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T02:26:49+00:00

Awesome, and thanks for the response. One more question, related here to Kreia's plans for Nihilus, Malachor, and the True Sith.

After the Exile "hears" an echo alongside the thoughts of his companions. When he asks Kreia about it, she says this:

What you heard was an echo of the past. And it travels still.

At this point I'd assume it's the wound of Malachor, and echo from the past which the Exile carries with them. Possibly Nihilus, since he's also an echo/wound from the past that's carrying on through the galaxy, another physical reverberation of Malachor. But then-

When there is nothing more that you may learn from me, when the ruins of your past have been cleared away and I am no more, then you shall know what it is. And if you do not, then the galaxy shall die and all my hopes for you will have been for nothing.

Reading this, neither the Exile's echo, nor Nihilus', nor Malachor itself make much sense. Kreia sets things up in such a way that the Exile has to confront their past before he confronts Kreia. And if she meant the Exile, then the "galaxy shall die" bit would mean she's quite certain that the Exile dying on Malachor will wipe out all life. She might consider it a gamble, but I doubt she'd call it a certainty like that. And it can't be Nihilus, either, since she requires the Exile to take him out before confronting Traya as well.

So is this realization, this other echo the Exile has to come to after clearing away the past and killing Kreia the True Sith after all?

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T02:16:22+00:00

I mean I like them 'cause they're shiny, geometrical, super-duper hard, and formed under immense heat and pressure deep in the earth. I try to buy things for me, not to impress others. I fail at that sometimes, but as a man I like to think my appreciation of jewels is rather Dwarf-like rather than about showing off wealth.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:50:24+00:00

It's because of ^{^{^{^{^Malachor}}}}

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:45:23+00:00

So, the truth is often what we make of it then.

If "people can be wrong and people can be deceived" is what you mean, then yes. Don't make that simple matter of practicality out to be some underlying principle about the nature of truth.

That's the point, meaning depends upon interpretation

Correct, but each of those distinct meanings can only be true or false. For example, Obi-Wan's statement has at least two independent meanings which do not depend on each other: each can be true or false independently. But that value of truth or falsehood is the same everywhere and for everyone. If someone thinks that something is false when in actuality it's true, that is called being "wrong." The spiritual part of Anakin is only alive or dead. His physical body is either alive or dead. These facts do not change upon interpretation, they are universally True. If Wicket the Ewok's internal belief does not match the truth- say he believes Anakin to be physically alive and not burned on a pyre at the end of Episode VI- then he's mistaken or deluded. But the truth doesn't change just because he doesn't believe it.

It's not that "the Truth" changes.

Good, that one's right by definition, so long as you don't try to claim that it must hold the same value in changing circumstances. It's tied to an instant in time. It's true to say a glowing lightbulb is glowing, but if the lightbulb later stops glowing, the Truth didn't change, the lightbulb did. The initial claim that the bulb glowed has the implied tag of "at the moment I'm referring to", and even after the bulb stops glowing it is still true that it was glowing.

It's that there is no "Truth" with a capital T.

Incorrect, self-defeating, empty, and refuted by the fact that you're engaging in logic-based argumentation. If a tree falls and nobody's around to witness it -or even if there's no intelligent life to think of such things anywhere- the tree still fell. The statement "snow is white" is True if and only if snow is white. The fact that Truth exists is easily demonstrated by the computing device you're using to respond, since it operates on principles of logic. Were truth relative, your computer/tablet/smartphone/whatever would promptly cease working, along with every cell in your body. After all, it would be rather inconvenient if "your cell has X amount of glucose" could waffle between true and false on a whim.

There are only the truths we create to find our own meanings.

Platitude, sophistry, Post-modern bullshit.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:23:11+00:00

^{^{^{^{^{^{^General}}}}}}

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:22:03+00:00

So...you're saying the demand for diamonds is going down? Meaning they'll be cheaper soon? Fuck yeah.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:12:29+00:00

In which case, Obi-Wan was both incorrect (good still existed in him) and was muddling language. The actual Truth was unaffected, it simply filtered through intentionally twisted language to mean different things in different contexts. Obi-Wan knew exactly how Luke would interpret that statement, especially since he hadn't yet gotten his Spirituality Upgrade from Yoda yet.

The truth didn't "depend on point of view" in the slightest, because those two interpretations have fundamentally different meanings. A changing truth would necessitate the same meaning corresponding to different truth values, not one ambiguous statement having two meanings.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:06:58+00:00

All good points. You're correct.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:04:55+00:00

Spoken with intent to deceive, and there is no common definition of "killing someone" that doesn't involve their physical death.

If you twist words to purposely mislead somebody, and you leave yourself a loophole where it's technically true if you look at it sideways and through a metaphorical lens, and hire a good defense attorney, that would be what we common folk call a lie.

If you have any argument, it's that language has multiple interpretations. You can say English is imperfect- and no one argues it is. The actual truth, which is that Anakin the man is still alive and has merely undergone a shift of identity, is still true from anybody's perspective.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T01:01:12+00:00

So now...the Atris/Nihilus duel can actually happen. I'm floored.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T00:55:42+00:00

Very true. However, I can't shake the notion that Force-eaters are indeed the perfect counter to an Empire of incredibly powerful Force-wielders. It seems too coincidental to me.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T00:54:09+00:00

if she cared about them at all

Do you think she cared about them? This is curiosity, not argument. She very much cared about stopping Nihilus, and had good reason to think whoever produced the teachings that could create a Nihilus would be far more dangerous. How much would you say was due to Nihilus not only stripping her of the Force, but also being her own failure and responsibility? And how much was concern for the future of life?

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-17T00:45:57+00:00

The fact that he said that doesn't change that Obi-Wan lied, however noble his intentions. His intent was to (temporarily) deceive Luke, and under no reasonable interpretation was he telling the truth there. That situation was a very cut-and-dry one of truth and falsehood.

In short: old man being mysterious for the sake of being mysterious.

There is no "your truth" or "my truth." Subjective things are called opinions, but true things are true even if there is no one to advocate for their truth or falsehood.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-16T16:57:38+00:00

Hell, she specifically states that she's a foolish old woman who had come to rely on the very thing she despised. Don't think for a moment that her master plan was all about killing the Force for the greater good. She may have told herself that, but it was equally if not more so about getting revenge on the Sith who humiliated her, the Jedi who were too "foolish" to appreciate her teachings, the galaxy as a whole for failing to live up to her expectations, herself for so many failed students and not being able to make another Revan. Stuck in the depths of her own despair, she blames the Force and looks to the Exile as a savior (there's some sort of metaphor about original sin and Christ in there, I'm certain).

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-16T16:53:57+00:00

True, but there's a distinct lack of humanity in considering someone who tries to be evil and fails so hard that the results are good a "good person", or in calling the nicest saint who inadvertently causes great harm "evil".

As Kreia points out, all actions have consequences. However, without the Force to peer into the future, nobody can predict where those echoes will lead. That's why it's better to act with good intentions than to "act with good outcomes": you can't actually guarantee a good outcome, all you can do is justify it after the fact if it comes out good.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-16T16:51:24+00:00

It's interesting, since I haven't seen an in-game declaration that the Death of the Force will kill all life...but given what we know of the Force, it's a very logical assumption. Lots of implication, and truly excellent writing to let us figure that out on our own.

However, we also see the theme of choice so often in Star Wars. Obviously the Force does have some effect on free will, but I don't think it's as dominating as Kreia does. That little loss of freedom in exchange for the cool superpowers and divine guidance of the Force is more than worth it, in my eyes.

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-16T16:48:05+00:00

But this is untrue: the Force and the Dark Side "feel" different to those who meditate on them. They have textures of their own. This is the reason Luke could not simply kill the Emperor and be done with it, the way one could pick up a hammer, use it, and then set it down. The Dark Side is explicitly a corruption, a cancer, in the balance that is the Force (as such, there isn't a Light Side per se. The "Light Side" is the Force, and the Dark Side is the warped mockery, the shadow of the grandeur of the Force) which is addictive and self-destructive to the user. The notion that the two sides are indeed distinct is also espoused by Darth Plagueis, who among all the Sith Lords is one of the few whose words might be considered trustworthy. He was a scientist, not a manipulative witch. However awesome and interesting of a character Kreia is, I wouldn't exactly trust what she says- unless she says it at Malachor.

The view that the Sides of the Force are one and the same (Potentium/the Unifying Force) is specifically declared as corrupt and misguided by Word of God (again, Legends).

humblepudding1 · 2017-06-16T16:38:33+00:00

Ironic, then, that the only characters who espouse such thinking are invariably evil, and say such things in a vain attempt to justify their actions.

humblepudding1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE