« Go West, Young Lobbyist | Main | Bolton: What's It All About? »
Relativism Watch
Julian Sanchez reports that just as Benedict XVI fears, Star Wars: Episode Three, will reveal that the Sith have a plot to institute a dictatorship of relativism and bring down the Old Republic.
April 26, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834586ac369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Relativism Watch:
» You Really Needn't Have Put Yourself Out from Jim Snowden's Second Omnibus
George Lucas reports that he had to "force himself" to write STAR WARS EPISODE III. It won't be nearly as painful as when I have to force myself to watch it, I'm sure. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 27, 2005 1:07:04 AM
» Best mp3 portals from MP3 Portals - Search for Music
Free MP3 music downloads from many music websites and portals... [Read More]
Tracked on May 7, 2006 2:37:43 PM
Comments
It has been pointed out elsewhere that Benedict bears an eerie facial resemblance to Emperor Palpatine.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Apr 26, 2005 9:35:02 AM
Relativism, oy! Negroponte reporting for duty, Lord Vader.
Posted by: The Heretik | Apr 26, 2005 9:40:40 AM
But do the Sith eat goat?
Posted by: RC | Apr 26, 2005 9:45:40 AM
Well, I don't know--I've always found Yoda's "force" rap to be pretty typical of the kind of anti-rationalist feel-good pablum that encourages relativism. The Jedi may not espouse any of the brands of relativism categorized over on Velleman's site, but they certainly cater to the theology that elevates personal feelings above all.
Oh--and has no one noticed that "Palpatine" got his name in part from the Palatine Hill, in the middle of Rome? So there was always a certain anti-Roman jibe built into that character, even before the cardinals found somebody from Central Casting to play the role of head Roman.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | Apr 26, 2005 10:58:41 AM
Actually, after reading the novelization for the new Star Wars Ep III, it seems to me as if there's a lot of Republican vs. Democrat coding in there.
Palpatine pushes through Constitutional amendments to gain more power, in the name of "security." The Jedi, and senators who oppose some of Palpatine's maneuvers, are labeled "traitors." Any dissent toward Palpatine's regime is twisted into a betrayal of the Republic. During a battle with Palpatine, Yoda realizes that the Sith have been planning their comeback for a good, long time, and that there's no way that the Jedi and the senators who oppose Palpatine can defeat them a this time. They're simply not prepared to do so.
This all reminds me of our current situation. Many right-wingers label any dissent or difference of opinion from the president as 'traitorous.' Bush backs or proposes new laws or amendments in the name of "security" or "tradition." And the Republicans, much like the Sith, carefully planned and networked their comeback from being out of power in Congress for such a long time that Democrats/liberals simply aren't in a position to regain control anytime soon.
Star Wars Ep III is a very political movie, with some interesting themes which relate to today's situation in the U.S. It should be interesting to see the response.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 26, 2005 11:20:44 AM
Don't forget George Lucas's aesthetic relativism, which suggests that Episodes I & II weren't crap, simply because millions of people liked them. Whereas, objectively, they were crap.
Wait, I think I hear David Velleman saying that the only valid aesthetic judgments are universal! So much for aesthetic relativism! Take THAT, Lucas!
Posted by: Anderson | Apr 26, 2005 12:15:06 PM
Hopefully, the backstory for the Sith motivations will be fleshed out more fully. After all, what is it they're taking "Revenge" for? (Or does the word mean nothing, except that Lucas has been dying to use "Revenge" in a title ever since it was spiked for "Return of the Jedi"?)
Posted by: Grumpy | Apr 26, 2005 12:29:01 PM
Remember, Episode 1 featured such subtle political coding as two obsequious "viceroys" called "Lott Dodd" and "Nute Gunray." Flip the order of the last two syllables if it doesn't jump out at you.
I can't explain the selection of Dodd--perhaps Lucas thought that calling a bad guy "Lott Lieberman" would have been too obvious a critique.
Posted by: Brittain33 | Apr 26, 2005 1:26:17 PM
"Hopefully, the backstory for the Sith motivations will be fleshed out more fully. After all, what is it they're taking "Revenge" for?"
The Sith used to be very powerful in the Star Wars (this was thousands of years before the stuff we're seeing in the prequels and the original trilogy).
Long story short, they were pretty well vanquished from power for a very long time, and that is when the Jedi really took hold. In fact, the Jedi thought the Sith no longer existed.
The Sith actually re-structured themselves into a two-person set-up: master and apprentice, and slowly built-up their strength and power over time. In Phantom Menace, the two Sith were Darth Sidious (Palpatine) and Darth Maul. In Attack of the Clones it was Darth Sidious and Count Dooku. In Revenge of the Sith, it will be Darth Sidious (Palpatine) and Anakain Skywalker (Darth Vader).
The fact that Palpatine unleashes himself upon the Jedi and the Republic, reveals his identity as a Sith, seduces Anakin to the dark side, and becomes Emperor of the galaxy is the "revenge of the Sith," since the Sith have been in virtual exile for a millennium.
Yes, I'm a Star Wars geek.
Posted by: Matt (not MY) | Apr 26, 2005 1:57:13 PM
The Sith actually re-structured themselves into a two-person set-up: master and apprentice, and slowly built-up their strength and power over time.
I've heard this, but how does restricting your organization to 2 people help you build up your strength?
And when Palpatine tells Vader in "Empire" that yes, Luke might be turnable, mustn't he anticipate that Vader will try to knock him off? (Or does Palpatine expect that Luke will kill Vader?)
Posted by: Anderson | Apr 26, 2005 2:17:29 PM
Not to mention, who's this General Grievous cat? Judging by the cartoons, he's stronger than 10 Jedi put together -- but he's not Sith? Not to mention the Sith acolyte introduced in the first run of shorts.
not MY: "Long story short, they were pretty well vanquished from power for a very long time, and that is when the Jedi really took hold."
All I want is to see this estabilshed, beyond the few lines of dialogue in Phantom Menace. But I don't expect it; Lucas doesn't care about motivations as much as mythology. The Sith will get their revenge because they're evil, and revenge is what evil people take.
Posted by: Grumpy | Apr 26, 2005 2:31:07 PM
I think General Grievous is something made out of Capsela.
Posted by: norbizness | Apr 26, 2005 2:33:40 PM
Anderson: I don't why they settled on having just two Siths. Concentration of power/focus, maybe? It's a Lucas thing. We wouldn't understand.
By the time of the original trilogy (episodes IV, V, VI) Emperor Palpatine is looking for someone to replace Vader. He never really wanted a hulking mass of machine to begin with. He was expecting to have hot, young Anakin Skywalker as his apprentice, but decided to keep him around even after he (Anakin) was burned and disfigured. Palpatine wanted a young, strong, able-bodied Luke to take over. I'm not sure if Vader was supposed to have caught on to this or not.
Grumpy: I doubt we'll see it established/explained/etc. The novelization was best when it was dealing with non-dialogue aspects of the story. In other words, the dialogue really explained nothing, it was all in the novelization part that stuff was laid out and established.
I doubt someone just going to see the movie will be able to understand what's going on, as Lucas most likely won't present it very well.
Posted by: Matt (not MY) | Apr 26, 2005 2:51:46 PM
This is from a NYTimes reader today:
"judges whose opinions are relativist, who call personal policy preferences law, and who ground their beliefs in a fashionable moral relativism and post-modern European nihilism."
Isn't nihilism the opposite of relativism?
Posted by: David | Apr 26, 2005 5:11:36 PM
By the time of the original trilogy (episodes IV, V, VI) Emperor Palpatine is looking for someone to replace Vader. He never really wanted a hulking mass of machine to begin with. He was expecting to have hot, young Anakin Skywalker as his apprentice, but decided to keep him around even after he (Anakin) was burned and disfigured. Palpatine wanted a young, strong, able-bodied Luke to take over.
Oh, great, so Palpatine is not just a relativist, he's a *gay* relativist. B16 will be so pleased.
Disfigured or not, if Vader got rid of all the remaining Jedi but Yoda & Obi-Wan, he seems to've been pretty damn competent.
Thanks for clarifying, inasmuch as it's possible ...
Posted by: Anderson | Apr 26, 2005 5:25:08 PM
Relativism wise, Rorty was supposedly a foudner at Left2Right, but is no longer listed, and Velleman slams him occasionally. What's up with that? A purge of relativists?
Posted by: John Emerson | Apr 26, 2005 7:31:57 PM
"Oh, great, so Palpatine is not just a relativist, he's a *gay* relativist. B16 will be so pleased."
Well, the "hot" adjective to describe Anakin was mine. And, yes, I'm gay thank you very much.
Posted by: Matt (not MY) | Apr 26, 2005 10:08:14 PM
Am I the only liberal-leaning Star Wars fan on the internet who doesn't think the Pope looks any more like Palpatine than any other old white guy? (If anyone looks like Palpatine, it's Sen. Joe Lieberman.)
Posted by: Dan MacQueen | Apr 28, 2005 2:31:20 PM
"Only the sith speak in absolutes," is the way of relativism. There is no such things as completely black or completely white. What about a zebra with black and white stripes with pink polka dots? just kidding, but really only in certain situations absolutes are king,
1. Death
2 Taxes
Some things are absolute but for everything else there's Starbucks, well shades of the rainbow.
With regards to some of you who seem so bored watching the movies, you certainly don't show lack of interest in the story. It is what always happens,
1. The good triuphs over evil
2. The good becomes obivious and corrupte
3. The bad fights and wins
4. The good regain the power and so on and so forth.
Posted by: sith detective | Sep 29, 2006 1:21:44 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
