Stoicism vs Gnosticism in Star Wars

[hammerofglass]

A big problem with this discussion is that Stoic philosophy itself was having a bit of a reformation in the time of the early church, and we don't have the original sources of the stoic philosphers before that point. We can't just read Zeno ourselves, his works are lost. Paul and Seneca were contemporaries, about the same age even. The "mature" form most people know from Marcus Aurelius just wasn't a thing yet.

[phantom000]

The idea that midichlorians are responsible for an individual's connection to the Force means that one could engineer a Force-sensitive by artificially manipulating the level of symbiotic organisms in their cells.

Clarifying that they're a side-effect solved the problem, but it should have been stated clearly from the first, instead of leaving the causative interpretation open.

This is not something I'd ever even seen brought up by Midichlorian bashers before.

Really? It seems like the central point of most of the arguments against midichlorians i've heard over the years, then again it might just be my corner of the internet. I know more about literature than I do about philosophy or religious studies so I approach this as a story teller more than anything else.

The line between science-fiction and fantasy is hard to define, even without 'science-fantasy' like Star Wars and Warhammer: 40,000. My theory is that the difference is what elements the creators want to focus on and how they fit into the plot. With fantasy the plot tends to focus on the characters and their adventures; science fiction tends to focus on the implications of the adventure and how the characters fit into the bigger picture.

From a plot stand point, one could argue that Tony Stark's gadgets are no different from Harry Potter's spells but in terms of theme there is a huge difference. Harry might be special in that he is unique among wizards, but in the end he is just one more magic user in a world of magic users. In that world, everyone uses a wand everyone rides a broom, even his cloak of invisibility is just accepted as normal, just expensive or unusual (kinda like Frodo's mithril shirt). Tony's armor, on the other hand, is not simply 'accepted' in fact its mere existence is what drives the plot of the Iron Man trilogy and a good chunk of the MCU (it's suggested that Falcon's wings are based on Tony's technology).

The whole point of technology is that it can be replicated, you just need to know how. Even Albert Einstein, who never applied for American citizenship because he would not register for the draft, understood that someone, somewhere, sometime, was going to build an atomic bomb and he would rather it be a America instead of the Nazis. Oppenheimer knew that once they created one bomb and showed the world what it was capable of, everyone else would be working to build their own atomic weapons which led to the issue of what happens when everyone has their own nuclear arsenal? This is the central theme of the Iron Man films and its not mistake that the Manhattan Project is referenced several times in all three films, once Tony built one suit and showed the world what it was capable of, how long before other people could build their own, which is basically what the villains did in all three movies.

With fantasy, such things are generally accepted by the characters and thus the audience. No one asks why a cricket ball can propel itself through the air fast enough to knock someone out, or why yelling 'Shazam!' turns a kid into a super hero or why one person can control water and another can control earth. That old cliche of 'it's magic we don't have to explain it' is just bad writers abusing the nature of the genre.

Now science fiction does not have to explain its technology, some do and so don't just like some fantasy have more developed magic than others, but sci-fi tends to consider the implications of the story more than fantasy does. Star Trek's Genesis Device is a great example of this because while it is just a macguffin for both the films the reasons for it are very different. In Star Trek 2 its an excuse for Chekov and stumble onto Khan's people and forces Spock's sacrifice at the end while in 3 Kruge wants to weaponize the technology, fearing the Federation is doing the same.

All right, to get back to the point I am trying to illustrate here...

There are stories that tend to blur the line between science fiction and fantasy but Star Wars is very fantasy, just with a science fiction aesthetic. The plot focuses on the characters, their conflicts and the adventures they go through to resolve them. Space ships, laser guns, aliens and robots are just accepted because they are, in the end, just aesthetic. If you said there were no aliens, just humans like in Dune it wouldn't really alter the story because they are all human archetypes anyway.

Midichlorians feels very out of place in the SW universe because while it is more of a science fiction element, its not just more set dressing like the other stuff we tend to see. The force is what drives the SW saga so any explanation will have implications for the entire story. People might complain about the eagles not carrying the fellowship to Mount Doom in LOTR, but at least the eagles are only in 2 scenes while the jedi and sith are practically in every scene from episode 1 to episode 9.

I'm not saying the Force should never have been explained in SW, I'm saying that midichlorians are just about the worst explanation anyone could have come up with because it just does not fit in this setting and the only way to make it fit would be to change the story into something very different. Like if some rich muggle discovered the 'wizard gene' by spliced it into himself and thus was able to use magic. It would be turning Harry Potter into X-Men.

[MithrandirOlorin]

It fits perfectly, the OT already established that The Force is generated by living things.

[Frustration]

The fact that you think there is anything platonic about the nature of Christ proves your the one who's wrong.

Um, Christian theologians have asserted that Platonic philosophy is a precursor to Christianity for centuries. I think it's a silly argument for a variety of reasons, but a traditional one with a great deal of historical continuity.

That the Midichlorians are living things with a will of their own

Now THAT isn't in the prequels, expressed or implied. It's like saying mitochrondria have their own opinions!

[phantom000]

It fits perfectly, the OT already established that The Force is generated by living things.

That is hardly the same thing as saying it comes from microscopic organisms inside our cells. And if these things do have a will of their own, which Qui-Gon implies when he explains them to Anakin, then they must be really screwed up considering that both the Jedi and the Sith can use the force while being so very different.

Even the idea of force talent being hereditary, something that is all but said in the original trilogy, would not require midichlorians as it's a common trope in fantasy for magical abilities to be passed down from the parents. In Avatar, its heavily implied that bending is hereditary, Tenzin was not the Avatar but he was an air bender like Aang while Kya was a water bender like Katarra just like Mako was a fire bender but his brother Bolin was an earth bender.

I talk about bending because its an example of how magical powers can be hereditary without something like midichlorians. In fact The Legend of Korra explained where bending came from and it works much better without diving into the physical aspects of it like TPM did.

[hammerofglass]

That the Midichlorians are living things with a will of their own

Now THAT isn't in the prequels, expressed or implied. It's like saying mitochrondria have their own opinions!

"Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force." -Qui-Gon, TPM

[phantom000]

That the Midichlorians are living things with a will of their own

Now THAT isn't in the prequels, expressed or implied. It's like saying mitochrondria have their own opinions!

"Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force." -Qui-Gon, TPM

Which makes me wonder just what the hell they are supposedly telling us given that some force users tend to go off the deep end. Or are there supposed to be 'light midichlorians' and 'dark midichlorians?'

[hammerofglass]

It fits perfectly, the OT already established that The Force is generated by living things.

That is hardly the same thing as saying it comes from microscopic organisms inside our cells. And if these things do have a will of their own, which Qui-Gon implies when he explains them to Anakin, then they must be really screwed up considering that both the Jedi and the Sith can use the force while being so very different.

Wasn't that Kreia's core argument in KOTOR 2?

[Frustration]

That's an example of speaking poetically. I can say that a beautiful work of art speaks to me, but I don't mean that it's causing air molecules to vibrate in a way that matches a language I know.

[MithrandirOlorin]

The fact that you think there is anything platonic about the nature of Christ proves your the one who's wrong.

Um, Christian theologians have asserted that Platonic philosophy is a precursor to Christianity for centuries. I think it's a silly argument for a variety of reasons, but a traditional one with a great deal of historical continuity.

That the Midichlorians are living things with a will of their own

Now THAT isn't in the prequels, expressed or implied. It's like saying mitochrondria have their own opinions!

The Platonism the Western Church embraced is the source of almost everything that's gone wrong with it. Gnosticism is Platonism taken to it's logical extreme.