Sign In

Post #1328053

Author
ShamanWhill
Parent topic
The Sequels - George's Original Trilogy
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1328053/action/topic#1328053
Date created
7-Mar-2020, 1:38 PM

act on instinct said:

But couldn’t not taking a side produce or prolong suffering due to inaction? Wouldn’t under that definition disillusioned Luke be correct in no longer fighting? I think these philosophical questions are what the characters should be struggling with, but as the ultimate answer for me it doesn’t track, doesn’t resolve anything and I question how it even forwards the narrative. So much about Star Wars is about choosing trust and love and that being an active thing that even puts you in danger but it’s the right thing to do, balance as neutrality clashes against that for me.

Very wise, yes. Not taking a side is even more dangerous than taking a side. Here are some wise words from a wise man:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

  • MLK Jr.