Lord Kilo Von Mortenson
Lord Akhenaton
Lord Kilo Von Mortenson
Lord Akhenaton
I never really viewed the idea of light and dark side as a philosophical view more than a religious one. And if anyone ever played KOTOR2, you'll know that the concept is very deep and complicated.
Whether or not it is deep and complicated all depends on definition and interpretation. If you define "Dark Side" as anything evil and destructive then many Sith Realists actually become light siders because, although they may refer to it as the "dark side" their intention is not evil nor destructive. Their goals are, in fact, very similar to the Jedi counterpart.
If you interpret something as light or dark based on intention then you have a very simple view. Is the intention good? Yes? Light side. Is the intention bad? Yes? Dark side. Good intention could be giving money to a beggar, your hope is that he will be able to eat and as such it is a light side act, so even if he gets mugged later your action was still "light side." If you refuse to give him money because you know it will cost him his life, that too is light side. If you refuse out of greed or agree to give the money so he'll die, that's dark side.
The complication and deepness comes in from lack of understanding and great understanding of different perspectives, opinions, and definitions, all clashing. In some cases a child may have a better understanding of the difference between light and dark sides than an adult because they don't complicate it. In some cases a child can't have a better understanding than an adult until/unless they can connect to and understand the Force.
You essentially took the concept right from the second KOTOR. If you are charitable, does that mean it goes to good? Maybe the man gets mugged as you say (Completely ripped off of the game for that matter), he could use it for evil things or he could be lazy with it. I really don't view the dark side as an evil side to chose. If I had to compare it, I would compare it the the American republican. It can range anywhere from true independence and thriving to being so evil as to sending soldiers to die just so you can afford to buy 20 more mansions that you'll never use. But in the end, it is by no means black and white.
I'm aware my example was ripped from the game. That was intentional. Since you mentioned it I thought it would be a good one, but I'm not entirely sure if you caught my point. My point was that it may end at intention. If you intend to do good and attempt to do so it is a light side act. If you intend to do bad and attempt to do so it is a dark side act.
The American Republican may send those soldiers to war because he feels it is the right thing to do, in which case it is a light side act. In the same war a Republican may agree to send those troops into battle for personal profit, thus a dark side act. On the flip side, let's say a Democrat protests the war only because he is not profiting, that would also be a dark side act. If the Democrat protests the soldiers being sent because, regardless of the cause, he believes war is wrong and desires peace than it is a light side act.
In truth it may not be black and white. Personally I don't really believe in a light or dark side at all. To me there is simply The Force. It's how we use it that matters. It's how we behave and what we intend to do which determines the difference between light and dark, good or evil.
I would think that there is no Light Side or Dark Side either, but neither do our intentions or actions fall into Good or Evil, Light Side or Dark Side. leastways not in the definitions that people have as standards.
see, I believe that all moral statements are merely statements of emotion. you call something bad, wrong or evil because you don't like it, or because you feel squicky about it. but The Force doesn't give a rat's a** about whether it is "right" or "wrong". those definitions are meaningless to the cosmos.
in the end, Evil is a subjective term relative to what one deems malevolent and Good is a subjective term relative to what one deems benevolent.
the concept fewer people tend to discuss is the difference between Lawful and Chaotic on teh Alignment Scale (a system not even present in Star Wars). Lawful Alignments tend to view morality as dependent on imposed Order and Structure. rigid rules prevent disaster and thereby bring prosperity to all (or leastways to a majority), making it righteous. you could be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil and still have the same basic idea of what's right.
however, a Chaotic Alignment is one who values freedom and dynamic energies. they understand that the Universe is kept in balance by way of change, destruction, death, violence, passion and conflict. they know that the Natural Order is Chaos itself. Trickster Gods, such as Loki or Coyote or even Eris -- there many others of course -- are often viewed as unrecognized heroes by Chaotic Alignments. Discord from MLP:FiM is one good example. without the antics of the Trickster Gods (the disasters of the world) the goodness not only has no meaning but also cannot become better.
in fact, the HIndu Religion worships Shiva, Lord of Destruction, as one of the highest Gods because of this very concept of Chaos being the Natural Order. it keeps the natural cycles going.
Order without Chaos is stagnant, and therefore cannot exist let alone thrive.
200
250
200
