Darth Malgus said:
You know, the more I read this discussion, the more I realize that this is not a discussion about the Jedi teachings and theology, but simply a confrontation between two philosophies and two different ways of understanding life.
On one hand, there are those who are in favor of Romanticism, expressing their passions and having selfish feelings, but without letting these things take over and balancing them with altruism. On the other hand, there are those who are completely opposed to passion and selfishness and profess absolute altruism, instead of a form of altruism that Is balanced with selfishness. It’s for this reason that Anakin’s story and tragedy have a different meaning depending on the person who talks about them.
Our contrasts have actually nothing to do with Star Wars, they’re simply a reflection of what we think and what our philosophy of life is. So if anything, if we have to discuss these things, I think we should do it in the appropriate sections, where we can discuss about personal things, philosophy and stuff like that. Because again, this discussion about the Jedi is nothing more than a transposition of what we think and what our philosophy of life is. So I think we should bring the discussion back to the objective reality of things, without necessarily having to involve Star Wars.
Pretty much everyone in real life, as well as the Jedi, agrees that you have to have a personal balance of acting for your own self-preservation and interest, and altruism.
The divide is more modern versus ancient, secular versus religious, or western versus eastern. The modern, western, secular perspective is essentially Freudian and liberal - your strong emotions and desires are your authentic self, and as long as they don’t harm other people, you should be able to do whatever you want. If you constrain them too much, then you’re “repressed” and it’s going to make you blow up eventually or act out in some way. It’s focused a lot on sex, and the whole thing is a sexual metaphor. From this point of view, having a large group of people all commit to control their desires is bound to fail spectacularly, and it’s only justified and held up by a bunch of superstition, mysticism, and unnecessary tradition.
The ancient or medieval, religious, eastern perspective is that emotions and desires are like horses. They’re extremely useful, but you need to train them, bridle them and keep them in check. Once you’ve done that, you can keep doing it indefinitely because you have the training and discipline. You might slip up occasionally but if there’s a big deviation it’s because you made a choice. When people make oaths or give their word, they generally mean it. Their “word is their bond.”
From the first perspective, the Jedi are doomed to failure because they don’t allow attachments and they teach initiates to control their emotions, which is ultimately impossible. Anakin is just the latest and worst in what must surely be a long line of blow ups. The Expanded Universe and the sequel trilogy seem to confirm this for a lot of people because there’s almost always someone turning to the dark side so that the story can happen. Luke’s Jedi got massacred too? Welp, looks like it was his fault for not “learning from the Jedi’s mistakes,” and suppressing Ben Solo’s emotions somehow. (This is inferred because of course we don’t see it.)
From the second perspective, Anakin tragically chose not to live the Jedi’s teachings. He chose ambition and power over his own family, friends, and allies. It’s a Faustian deal with the devil. But that only makes complete sense for people that believe in the concept of a devil, or temptation, or evil, as opposed to just competing priorities or sets of desires.