Star Wars in Philosophy.

No, I don't find it that improbable. Things have certain ontological things in them. Lord if the Rings is a very good example too, but the One Ring was only designed for one wielded, Sauron, and every else couldn't withstand all of that power, I think.

I never read him until I started Human, All Too Human recently - not addictive so far by any stretch of the imagination, in fact I dropped the book - but found the style lively and amusing, and there are a few good intuitions...

Didn't the Stalinist Communist leadership say the same thing? The use of that word 'freedom' can be quite treacherous.

Ultimate freedom does not come from an individual achieving great power. That is hardly 'self-improvement.' Like alcoholism or drug addiction, it is a way of becoming a slave to your drive, a drive which after a time becomes a compulsive obsession. Striving for power can only lead to a need for more power. I think Schopenhauer understood this; Nietzsche did not.

In the final analysis it is only partly true that power corrupts. If you look deeper, it seems to be true only because only people who are easily corruptible ever seek great power. The man running for high office has, to some extent, already been corrupted.

Ultimate power -- and ultimate freedom -- comes from not seeking, and certainly not needing, anything which, in the end, might corrupt one's inner peace.

Funny. The Sith Code says, "Peace is a lie."

And also, the Sith (I feel a bit awkward using fictional philosophy, but...) strive towards, "breaking their chains" (freedom), not power.

This Sith BS recalls to mind Leopold and Loeb.

Never heard of them. Maybe I should research them now that I've heard if it.

Tolkien is a real writer, I would say, but in the end fiction is fiction. It is made to entertain. Don't take any of this sith stuff too seriously. Enjoy the Star Wars stories but don't bank on their deeper meaning too much - it may turn out not so deep after all...

I used to enjoy the novels of Michel Tournier, a French writer who did pretty decent fantastic stories (you could like the Erl King). Then I read his autobiography, where he explains that each novel of his has a philosophical underpining, something which had escaped me totally while reading them. Sadly, I found these philosophical 'problems' much much duller (?) than his novels themselves, and that broke their magic for me. Like when the trics of a magician are exposed to you and all you can feel is slightly depressed that the mystery is gone... Turned out Tournier was a good entertainer but a rather boring philosopher.

I see. I'll take your suggestion into consideration.

On the dark side you are already. Be very careful young jedi.

I embrace power, Jedi fool!

I am the emperor. You will serve me as your lord and master.

But remember, the apprentice will soon be the master.

I know Logicus has already proposed that there is some useful data in the Sith Star Wars, I'm going to go further, and propose that we live a similar life as them. After all, they do believe in, "extreme" evolution, something our scientists have, in reality, prove to be true.

That may be going to far, Cipherius. I am only suggesting that we could point out a few things that can be related to reality.

We must take things to the extremes. Better understand certain perspectives. After all, the Sith are,, or at least, seem, extreme.

So this thread has finally degenerated to where it should have been when it started out -- a kiddy exegesis on the "philosophy" of a despicable race in a (basically) teeny-bopper sci fi series. Good going, guys.

Believe me, that wasn't what I intended it to be.

If you wish to transcend the egregious fallacy of the "legend of Nietzsche" (especially the myth of his anti-semitism and the connection with Wagner and Nazism) read at least the work by the Jewish philosopher, Walter Kaufmann (e.g., the fourth edition of Nietzsche, Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist).

I didn't say he was antisemite but disliked the judeo-christian morality, which he saw as unduely protecting the weak against the strong, no? As I said, I didn't read the guy and am the first to admit it's hearsay.