"The Force" and Manichean Dualism

[tomarin]

Do you think George Lucas’s idea of “the force” reflects a Manichean worldview? And if so what distinguishes the good side from the dark side in the final analysis, if they represent two opposed and equal forces like the pieces on a chess board?

 

[phoooiee]

Well, I don’t see “the force” rejecting the material world as evil, as the Manicheaens did. It seems to be more of an interior disposition- and we see those who follow the “dark side” seeking power in the physical world, rather than rejecting things material.

 

[Qoeleth]

Do you think George Lucas’s idea of “the force” reflects a Manichean worldview? And if so what distinguishes the good side from the dark side in the final analysis, if they represent two opposed and equal forces like the pieces on a chess board?

I agree, that in Star Wars, the good and bad side seem to be abitrary. I feel its fundamental message is that “whoever’s side your’e on is the good one”- kind of like the Americans assuming the Russians were all bad.

Manicheaism is best understood as an etiology of moral and non-moral evil. It is not an ‘equal’ dualism- of which, indeed, I cannot think of any examples, even in Zoroastrianism. “The Father of Greatness” is the first and eternal God- but evil is held to exist independently of “The Father of Greatness”.

If you think about it, the meontological explanation of evil (that evil is really non-existence, and therefore not created by God) really points to the same reality- which is to say, the experience of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as opposing forces- moral dualism.

Star Wars reduces this moral dualism to something abitrary- to black uniforms versus blonde hair- to physical ugliness versus physical beauty.

 

[phoooiee]

I agree, that in Star Wars, the good and bad side seem to be abitrary. I feel its fundamental message is that “whoever’s side your’e on is the good one”- kind of like the Americans assuming the Russians were all bad.

Manicheaism is best understood as an etiology of moral and non-moral evil. It is not an ‘equal’ dualism- of which, indeed, I cannot think of any examples, even in Zoroastrianism. “The Father of Greatness” is the first and eternal God- but evil is held to exist independently of “The Father of Greatness”.

If you think about it, the meontological explanation of evil (that evil is really non-existence, and therefore not created by God) really points to the same reality- which is to say, the experience of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as opposing forces- moral dualism.

Star Wars reduces this moral dualism to something abitrary- to black uniforms versus blonde hair- to physical ugliness versus physical beauty.

I don’t see it- for example, when Anakin (blond-haired) turns to the dark side- he still has blond hair- but then turns himself ugly due to his own interior disposition.

The characters in Star Wars choose the dark side when they choose the quick path to power- dominion over others rather than mastery of their own passions.

 

[tomarin]

Manicheaism is best understood as an etiology of moral and non-moral evil. It is not an ‘equal’ dualism- of which, indeed, I cannot think of any examples, even in Zoroastrianism. “The Father of Greatness” is the first and eternal God- but evil is held to exist independently of “The Father of Greatness”.

If you think about it, the meontological explanation of evil (that evil is really non-existence, and therefore not created by God) really points to the same reality- which is to say, the experience of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as opposing forces- moral dualism.

(shortened by Tomarin)

So you’re saying that in traditional Manicheanism (which Lucas may or may not be consciously imitating in his movies) the two sides are not moral equals even though they are equal in every other way?

 

[tomarin]

I don’t see it- for example, when Anakin (blond-haired) turns to the dark side- he still has blond hair- but then turns himself ugly due to his own interior disposition.

The characters in Star Wars choose the dark side when they choose the quick path to power- dominion over others rather than mastery of their own passions.

I think that’s a perceptive point.

I guess what I’m trying to dig at here is the nagging feeling that while “the force” seems to be Manichean the universe he created and the characters who inhabit it don’t always seem to fit the bill. Maybe if Lucas were a more sophisticated filmmaker and/or thinker they would?

 

[Qoeleth]

(shortened by Tomarin)

So you’re saying that in traditional Manicheanism (which Lucas may or may not be consciously imitating in his movies) the two sides are not moral equals even though they are equal in every other way?

One being Good and the other Evil imply a moral inequality (not just like black and white in chess!). The means of the Kingdom of Light is revelation of truth (through prophets), whereas the means of the Kingdom of Darkness is trickery (through material temptations) and imprisonment.

Also, although the Worlds of Light and Darkness are co-eternal, the World of Light has primacy (i.e. it is the World of Darkness which attacks the world of light), and is held to be the destination of the cosmic plan of ‘salvation’- hence prophets like Buddha, Jesus and Mani.

 

[tomarin]

One being Good and the other Evil imply a moral inequality (not just like black and white in chess!). The means of the Kingdom of Light is revelation of truth (through prophets), whereas the means of the Kingdom of Darkness is trickery (through material temptations) and imprisonment.

Also, although the Worlds of Light and Darkness are co-eternal, the World of Light has primacy (i.e. it is the World of Darkness which attacks the world of light), and is held to be the destination of the cosmic plan of ‘salvation’- hence prophets like Buddha, Jesus and Mani.

So the two worlds are co-eternal but not co-equal.