Star Wars in Philosophy.

No, he is not technically right. This author is just puking up what others have written, and written better. The author is not involved in theorizing, and is presenting nothing new.

Yes. I never said this was an original form if philosophy, just one that seems to consist of a few real ones.

Young people have a tendency to imbue popular culture with meanings that it does not inherently possess. In my youth, the band The Moody Blues was a particularly popular target for such allegations of deep meaning, enough so that one member who wrote many of their songs, Justin Hayward, wrote a song entitled "I'm Just a Singer in a Rock and Roll Band." Young people did this with the metal band System of a Down in the 90s and the first decade of this century, and in the video of their performance at Big Day Out (a series of concerts and cultural events at several venues in Australia and New Zealand), before performing "Ariels," a very popular song that young people had taken as having deep meaning, Daron Malakian, one of the founders, walks up to the microphone to say: "Once again, this song is about nothing." There is film of John Lennon when he talks to a young American who has been camping out on his lawn in England (you can see it by clicking here). Lennon says things such as "I'm just a guy who writes songs." and "I was just having fun with words, it was literally a nonsense song."

To refer to artifacts of popular culture--especially as they are usually produced for the cash, and really have no particular deep meaning for the author--as philosophy, is complete nonsense.

It doesn't matter if the author finds meaning in it or not, as long as the reader can find importance in it.

You certainly could reply there is good n bad philosophy...pop theorizing more often then not gives an example on poor simple minded philosophizing...

Sometimes, simple-minded might be important to philosophy. Having complex beliefs, and a set of things you strongly believe you know may blind you to other valid ways of thinking.

That's precisely what's wrong with that kind of horseshit "philosophizing." Charles Manson thought that the song "Helter Skelter" had importance and signaled the coming race war in America. In fact, a helter skelter is just a low-tech amusement park "ride," a curving slide like a glorified children's slide.

In one sense, you're right. People can delude themselves into believing anything, and then blame it on popular culture.

Sounds like rehashed Nietzschean BS.

It does have traces of Nihilism in it. Funny, there's a Sith Lord called Darth Nihilus as well.

I suppose if that's what you believe.

Authors of songs that get on with a "new life" imbued with a lot of meaning by the public tend to hate that development, even if at the start they did try to say something important to them in their song. First there's the problem that they feel misunderstood, then there are risks involved (like when Lennon said he was more famous than Jesus... didn't go down very well in the US and they lost many fans).

So they use the standard disclamer: "nothing in this work refers to reality, I'm just writing songs". Doesn't make it true though... It's just a way to be left alone.

Here is one such pop song of which the singer (Tina Arena) said is "not a political song and it’s not about a political subject. It’s a metaphor - like a poem. It’s a woman saying ... I was once beautiful and now I’m in ruins, I’m destroyed." It was published in 2006 in France, and speak of "Baghdad having fell under the fire of tanks"... Not political in the least, of course...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQzc-BA1t8o

Yeah well, they're the bad guys, remember? Don't go over to the dark side of the force, Log. Just don't.

That's a good point, Olivier. Those quotes that Logicus has posted all come out of the mouths of "the bad guys." There is certainly no reason to infer that the author agrees with what he has his characters saying. He has merely created some characters who mouth a pseudo-Nietszchean (sp?) nihilism. Doesn't mean the author is a nihilist or agrees with what his characters say.

But, that said, what Logicus seems to be asking is what do we think of this philosophy as expressed by the Sith characters, not whether or not is the author's view.

Personally, for me that so-called philosophy is repulsive.

Evil is a perspective. I don't agree with their views, but I don't want it to become too one-sided.

Yes, that's what I'm asking.

Nietzsxcshsczhe (sp?) had a strong influence on the Nazis so I would agree with you that, although brilliant at times, his detestation of Judeo-Christian morality (I'm an atheist by the way) and glorification of force were despicable, and may have opened the gates of hell.

The author quoted by Log is probably trying to write punch lines that kids among his audience would find transgressive and thus cool. The whole ubermensch deal can be fascinating for kids. I remember that was totally riveted on Arsene Lupin, "le plus grand des voleurs".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPGFjD_xkGY

In the US it was Superman or some other spandex-clad flying dude. Umberto Eco has written on how all these super heroes from the 20s and 30s were Nietschshzjhxhean. Kids dig that.

True. Perhaps I haven't experienced enough to make a judgement call on these kind of topics yet.

For reasons I have yet to fathom, the works of Friedrich Nietzsche (cq) were very popular with young people as late as the 1960s and 1970s, long after he had ceased to be considered very important by the academic community at large. His vision of the Uebermensch (I don't have an umlaut on my keyboard ) seemed to strike a chord with adolescents. Perhaps it still does today. As you say, the Nazis certainly liked him and so -- apparently -- do the Sith.

Yes, and my good may be your evil. At the same time, if there's anything profound in Star Wars (I know it sounds improbable...), it is that the "dark side" is truly tempting, but may corrupt you so deeply that there's no returning to the "good side".

Another pop culture illustration of the same idea is the ring in the Lord of the Rings. The power it confers comes with a corruptive influence, which I always understood as a parable for "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Well, there are differences, I think, between Nietzche and the Sith. Nietzsche has the belief that there is no purpose to anything, while the Sith say that their purpose it the self-improvement if the individual, and ultimate freedom.