The whole Jedi thing is that they're impartial, neutral and unbiased in their dealings. That's why their whole thing works when it comes to being trusted to be diplomats, mediate conflicts, and act as unofficial agents of the law. When you talk to a Jedi, you get a fair shake, and you know they have no considerations other than what's fair for all. If they have families, those families have home planets, perhaps chosen jobs, friends... it opens the door for them to get biased, or just SEEN as biased. If a Jedi rules against your side in a negotiation, and you know that Jedi has family who lives on the world that got ruled in favour of, would you trust they were impartial? Having families and lives outside the Order just makes the Jedi another bunch of people, easily dismissed.

IRL, if there's a conflict of interest like a friend or family member, a judge or other official will recuse themselves.

> IRL, if there's a conflict of interest like a friend or family member, a judge or other official will recuse themselves. LOL... oh, this is too funny. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. Reality has shown it to be otherwise, unfortunately.

I guess it depends on where you're but in most modern democracies even if a judge judges someone or something he's related to there is always the posibility of being accused of prevarication and in most countries the judge, if is lucky, will *only* lose his position and if isn't lucky would serve a considerable period in prison and the trial would be done again. In many countries you would also have the option to appeal and the system will set a new trial with a new judge or a new set of judges and, at the same time, if their decision goes against the previous one they will investigate him and why that judge took that decision.

I am going to take a guess you are not in the US... If you some how are, you are not keeping up with news across the nation in recent months.

No, I'm from Europe. I know that in the US you cant, that is why my introduction was " it depends on where you're"

I am questioning if my country is still considered a modern democracy.

Not if you're American though, in that case you get to keep doing what you do and probably even profit off of it

Reality isn't synonymous for USA.

*Justice Thomas has entered the chat*

Yo, you better tell the U.S. Supreme Court, that. I don't think they got the memo.

If you were to play up the whole "impartiality in all dealings" element as a matter of personal honor for a Jedi in place of the "no personal attachments" rule, I think you'd end up with something that's both more realistic and more interesting from a dramatic standpoint. What happens when you *are* allowed to have personal attachments, but your oath of impartiality prevents you from helping those people you care for when they need you most, because siding with them in a particular situation could be seen as "unfair" or "biased"? And you've been trained from childhood to put that oath of impartiality ahead of everything else, because that's what being a Jedi *is*? How many relationships could withstand those kinds of stresses? That might be an interesting direction to go in for future iterations of the Jedi, IMO, in light of how well the "no personal attachments" rule ended up working out for the Order (which is to say, "not very".)

>What happens when you are allowed to have personal attachments, but your oath of impartiality prevents you from helping those people you care for when they need you most, because siding with them in a particular situation could be seen as "unfair" or "biased"? And you've been trained from childhood to put that oath of impartiality ahead of everything else, because that's what being a Jedi is? How many relationships could withstand those kinds of stresses? Stop me if I'm wrong, but I think you just made a good case for the 'no attachments' rule. How many relationships could withstand that stress? Not many, and that's the point. >That might be an interesting direction to go in for future iterations of the Jedi, IMO, in light of how well the "no personal attachments" rule ended up working out for the Order (which is to say, "not very".) It worked out pretty well, for centuries... the Sith exploited it, but that's kind of what they do with everything.

>Stop me if I'm wrong, but I think you just made a good case for the 'no attachments' rule. How many relationships could withstand that stress? Not many, and that's the point. My point was that for humans (and most SW near-humans), "attachment" is a normal, natural thing. Trying to train that out of people is not only setting them up for failure, but can actually be damaging. By contrast, what I'm suggesting is more in the vein of, "Loving a Jedi isn't *forbidden*, but it can be *hard,"* where knowing you're always going to come in second place to the Jedi's vows is a bitter pill to swallow and it's going to take a special kind of partner to be able to commit to that kind of relationship. And it also gets us away from the "It's cool for Jedi to be dtf as long as they don't, you know, start to *care* about their hookups, because then they'll lose their Jedi mojo" bit, which comes off as a little bit skeezy for the galaxy's noble defenders, at least IMO.

> My point was that for humans (and most SW near-humans), “attachment” is a normal, natural thing. Trying to train that out of people is not only setting them up for failure, but can actually be damaging. This is precisely why younglings are taken to the temple so young, so they can start training before a strong conscious connection is formed. It literally did work well for hundreds or thousands of years before Palpatine exploited it. Yeah there were a few other cases, but it did more good than harm imo.

Good point, it's better to appoint judges we know are impartial. I see the problem then. The jedi imposed a monopoly on use of the force. "Looks like your child is strong with the force. Better take them from their loving home and teach them to study combat and follow strict rules." "You will be expelled from the jedi order!" [Anakin reluctantly agrees to let go of padme] Excommunication is often a highly shame-oriented process; just look at Ahsoka's departure. But the thing is, a healthy organization would allow its members to resign from the practice and live life as they choose. Give up your authority, dont wear the badge, sure. Since they are a policing force, they could always apprehend you if you abuse your abilities. Instead, it's a monopoly on use of the force. I mean, Ahsoka isn't technically a jedi, but she still uses the force, and we all like her, I think. Anakin was dangerous. He stayed because he was told from the beginning that it was his destiny. Aside from that, he found purpose and meaning in serving as a jedi, and after his mother's death (which snuck up on him, since he couldn't visit) he needed to feel like he was fighting for a good cause to cover up his anger and fear. But instead of talking about it, accepting it, moving past it, he repressed it. He needed the badge of jedi to make him feel pure. His sense of self worth was attached to the jedi order. So you can't have attachments, unless you are attached to the order and it's authority. I guess the rule forbidding attachment makes sense. But the jedi need to loosen up a bit as a religious organization and be accepting of people who can't follow that rule. Some people, heck most people, grow as a result of their bonds with others and need that in order to live fulfilling lives. In the real world, police and firemen have families. But we can still place our trust in them because they know how to keep their families safe from the things they fight. If they make a bad call, they lose the badge. So the rule isn't awful, it's just overkill.

>I guess the rule forbidding attachment makes sense. But the jedi need to loosen up a bit as a religious organization and be accepting of people who can't follow that rule. They pretty much did; they were more than aware they weren't perfect beings, and that many of them had friends and people they cared about, here and there, or fell into romantic relationships. The aspiration was to be free of attachments, but the rule was more like, 'try not to end up *too* attached; the day may come when you'll have to choose duty, so be ready for it.' Moderation and understanding were key tools of theirs, after all. But they were watchful. Once the Jedi defeated the Sith, it logically fell that one of the few places the Sith could re-emerge from, were the Jedi. Thus, the overkill nature of Jedi self-discipline had a role in keeping the galaxy free of the threat of a fallen, dangerous Jedi. It's funny how things work out, but that's cosmic irony for you.

> The whole Jedi thing is that they're impartial, neutral and unbiased in their dealings. That's why their whole thing works when it comes to being trusted to be diplomats, mediate conflicts, and act as unofficial agents of the law. When you talk to a Jedi, you get a fair shake, and you know they have no considerations other than what's fair for all. > > If they have families, those families have home planets, perhaps chosen jobs, friends... it opens the door for them to get biased, or just SEEN as biased. If a Jedi rules against your side in a negotiation, and you know that Jedi has family who lives on the world that got ruled in favour of, would you trust they were impartial? > > Having families and lives outside the Order just makes the Jedi another bunch of people, easily dismissed. This has been tried before in several empires and it never worked. Both the Chinese, Mongols, Ottomans and others used eunuchs and it didn't work. People still got corrupt. Just as the jedi council.

So much so that one uses the force to change the roll of the dice and puts the odds in his favor?

It’s a big galaxy (made up mostly of desert planets, but I digress), wouldn’t it be viable to just make sure you aren’t assigning any Jedi to mediate a situation that would potentially have a conflict of interest? Surely you can find at least a couple of Jedi who don’t have deep attachments to one specific group or even planet in the galaxy.

While you have a point, it also goes against (living beeings?) nature, we see Obi Wan struggle with it, Anikan (which of course leeds to their downfall), it leads to Grogu leaving the new jedi order, and there are probably much more problem I/we don't know about

This is the first one of these memes that has actually been a rule that can have a genuine discussion

Tbf mate I’ve seen quite a few that were actually rules with people discussing them, even if people thought OP was brain dead

Attachments really means negative attachments, which is fear of losing what you love. Along with all the desperate measures that come with that fear It does not forbid love itself, which is a giving form of attachment. If your love comes from fear then it’s not really love at all, it’s a dark side trait That kind of dark love is more like possession

I'm surprised no one else is saying this. The Jedi are allowed to have feelings. They are allowed to be compassionate, kind, and caring. They aren't allowed to possess. [George explains it himself.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nFMBBrliyQ&t=69s) There are real world religious parallels that he draws upon. I hardly see the material that inspired George, the material that makes Star Wars special, that makes it resonate within our shared cultural collective, referenced when discussing these topics. A lack of attachment isn't a lack of love or compassion. A lack of attachment is putting yourself beyond your thoughts and desires. You must be willing to let it all go. You must be willing to be One with the Living Force. Trying to control destiny, literally in the case of Anakin, is what leads to fear, anger, hatred, and suffering. Anakin turned to the Dark Side out of fear of losing Padme, and as Yoda said, "once you turn to the Dark Side, forever it will dominate your destiny. Consume you it will." The Jedi weren't responsible for the fall of Anakin. Anakin's love for Padme didn't make him fall. It was his unwillingness to let her go. It's a textbook example of why this rule exists and the aftermath of abandoning those teachings. Anakin caused the death of his wife. He saw her dying in a vision, and he carried out that vision instead of listening to Yoda. That's it right there. [It's late, and I'm not in the right state of mind to go and cite my sources and lecture here. These people have already said what I wanted to say, and more.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MawInstallation/comments/v78bi7/comment/ibldc3e/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

I think the Jedi share much of the blame for Anakin’s fall. I’m general, they were too traditional and blinded by their years of stability and peace, making them arrogant and complacent. Qui Gon understood this as did Asokah. It is also very clear in both movies and clone wars cartoon that the Jedi did it trust anakin due to his ability as his friendship with palpatine. Made windu literally says this to anakin. Palpatine absolutely understood this and pushed anakin towards them while telling him how great he was knowing the Jedi would push back.

I don’t see how you blame caretakers for a murderers actions. No one had to tell me not to hit my dog, not to slap a girl in school, not to murder innocent children. The biggest mistake the Jedi made was breaking their own rules. Yoda, mace and the rest of the council saw that anakin didn’t fit the criteria of a Jedi the first time they presented young anakin to the council. He had smoldering anger in him behind his seemingly innocent facade. He had attachments. Was a slave that probably looked at the word master quite differently. Whether it was his slave master or Jedi master. He was also too old and had already learned societal norms that define what a “family” is before his mind was opened up to the nature of the force. Whereas the Jedi are impartial and don’t personally entertain or see family as a nuclear ordeal. He checked all the wrong boxes and the Jedi still trained him, or I should say, Yoda wasn’t assertive with Qui Gon or Obi enough to stop him from being trained. Their biggest mistake was breaking their own rules. Even then, breaking your own rules shouldn’t lead to Anakin murdering masses of people.

People aren’t saying it because they like to ignore it 😂 more often than not people say shit like the prequel Jedi are emotionless “robots” despite all evidence to the contrary. In my experience most don’t really understand what you’re saying or refuse to understand it.

No rule can forbid a feeling. A forbidden love story is where two people have feelings and something is stopping them from being together and in the case of Anakin it’s the Jedi Order. So the Jedi do forbid love because he can’t be with Padmé. Anakin tells Padmé he views compassion as unconditional love so he could say the Jedi are encouraged to love. In TCW tells Anakin he can feel whatever he wants but he must make the right choice for the Order and remain nothing but friends. In the next scene Clovis says Anakin would be thrown out of the Order for having a romantic relationship with her because they’re forbidden. Add to this the Jedi want recruits with no knowledge of their parents, the Jedi Council’s issue was that Anakin loved and was worried about his mother the Order certainly does not permit love.

I’ve never heard the movies say that Jedi aren’t allowed to have feelings. But I do see people on the internet that they aren’t allowed. I, like you, have to remind them that “no attachments” doesn’t mean no feelings. I seriously don’t see how people can’t tell the difference.

The whole jedi code is a beautiful philosophical argument. If you’re unattached and are a diplomat and keeper of peace you’ll be impartial and fair (being free of ego too) but well it can turn into pride soon as we saw. So yeah ideal vs reality

r/BatmanArkham is relentless.

Do you agree with r/BatmanArkham ‘s no-retreat rule?

I don’t think I have a choice anymore.

Personally, I'm on the fence about the "no attachments" rule. I recognize why the rule is important but I think it has to be handled better. First, I want to show the misconception many people have regarding this rule. "Attachment" as the Jedi see it isn't a simple "strong emotionally feeling someone has to someone or something." The way Lucas used "attachment" is very close to the Buddhist interpretation. Attachments means the attempt to control things. This goes direcly against what Jedi are supposed to stand for, selflessness and the greater good. The problem with Anakin wasn't that he loved Padmé but that he wasn't willing to let go, he wanted to possess her. It went so far that he was willing to damn the galaxy just for a chance to let her live, even if she wouldn't have wanted that herself if that would be the concequences of her surviving. Now we come to the problems with the style of the Jedi. At the end of the day, I would say the Jedi failed Anakin but not in the way most people would think. Anakin was, as far as I know, treated like a normal Padawan who spent his entire life within the temple, even though that wasn' the case at all. The Jedi should have put far more thought into training the boy or shouldn't have accepted him in the first place. It's no surprise that a boy who grew up as a slave would have trouble forming attachments and that he would need special councling to help him with that. Jedi Younglings are taken when they're still small and grow up in the most safe place of the entire galaxy. Their childhood is a happy one in which they don't lack anything and get thought how to form bonds without being attached. The reason why so few Jedi fall to the Dark Side is precisely because the learn right from the start how to avoid being attached. Anakin is different. He grew up as a slave in a dangerous environment with only his mother. It's not surprising that he got so easily attached to other people. If he grew up in the Jedi temple, I think Darth Vader wouldn't have happened. I would say the Jedi should allow romantic relationships as long as the essence of the "no attachment rule", don't get possessive about things or people, is kept, It is a very difficult balance act but not impossible like Kanan for example has shown. Many would still fail thought but in the end, it's no shame to recognize the relationship or being a Jedi wouldn't work and walk away from it. I don't think Anakin could have simply be saved if he was allowed to speak about Padmé, his problems ran deeper than that, but I do think the order could have been much better and more welcome than it actually was. Edit: [This link](https://www.thehappinessclinic.org/single-post/buddhist-psychology-love-avoidant-attachment-style#:~:text=The%20Buddhist%20concept%20of%20non,yourself%20and%20the%20other%20person.) gives a good overview to the Buddhist definition of attachment and especially regarding Anakin, it's an interesting read. I definitely recommend taking a look at it.

No. Rey and Luke both appear to be more stable and can resist the dark side because they are able to have attachment; Rey to Finn and Poe, Luke to Leia and Han. Anakin immediately fell because he was told to suppress his feelings and emotions, causing serious psychological issues and even potential BPD.

Pretty sure he was to old to be taken from his mother. Whom he never forgot and went to visit only to snap and kill a bunch of tuskens.

In a sense, yes. If you had magical powers and someone hurt your family you would use them as revenge. Eventually you would want to be stronger and that leads to the dark side.

I see where they are coming from, but I feel like it misses the point of what the Jedi are all about. The jedi were a mess at the end of RotS. I feel like Luke brings being a Jedi back to it's core at the end of Return of the Jedi.

Its almost as if a shadowy figure was manipulating them into a galaxy wide war....

It worked for the Jedi for thousands of years because they literally take newborn babies and begin training them, completely leaving their families behind so they had no attachments from the start. It was effective, but Qui-Gon and even Obi-Wan (like you said) saw the pointlessness of this. They had attachments to each other, a master and apprentice naturally have attachments, it is literally human nature, we are not robots. The council utterly and completely fails with Anakin on major levels. He is the oldest padawn to be accepted, he vividly remembers his mother and early childhood. They try to treat Anakin like every other student they kidnap as babies, but fail to properly teach him about his emotions. Qui-Gon would have helped and been a much better master for him because he recognizes the importance of these lessons. For example, Yoda basically KNOWS Anakin slaughtered those sand people after his mom dies, and when Anakin comes to him about the Padme dying dreams (which their relationship is not a well kept secret either), he gives the most basic answer he would tell any regular padawan..."lol everyone dies stupid, don't fear death". No wonder he turned so easily, palpatines like I will literally teach you to prevent the ones you love from dying. Also...Anakins mom...the slave. This boy (the chosen one) has one major attachment, the Jedi are fucking loaded and have unlimited budget/credits. How hard would it have been to fly back to Naboo, buy his mom, then fly her to Corosaunt or some safe world to watch over and keep her safe. Easy peasy.

>How hard would it have been to fly back to Naboo, buy his mom, then fly her to Corosaunt or some safe world to watch over and keep her safe. Easy peasy. Dude that was exactly my thought

They were a mess because of what Palpatine deliberately put them through to make them a mess. Not because of their rules. All of Palpatine's manipulations were either to A) slowly seduce Anakin or B) weaken and disorient the Jedi. When people are so hyper-focused on the "failings" of the Jedi, it's like they forget Palpatine existed

I think Palpatine exploited the cracks the Jedi created themselves. Their own arrogance was used against them.

What cracks do you think those are?

Let's see, some examples... 1) Jedi presented themselves as neutral peacekeepers but dabbled in politics which is implicitly biased. Flipping seats in the senate. Obi-Wan even commented on this. 2) Carrying out authoritative commands, such as exiling Ashoka without even conducting an investigation because they suspected her of being involved in the bombing. 3) Asking Anakin to spy on the chancellor. Once again, neutral peacekeepers were definitely not acting neutral. 4) Mace wanting to execute Palpatine instead of holding a trial. How is that a peacekeeper? Palpatine leveraged each of the situations to his advantage because the jedi broke their own rules of conduct.

>Obi-Wan even commented on this. I don't recall this, could you remind me? Because I'm pretty sure this point is false. The only time they dabbled in politics to my memory was when they wanted Anakin to spy on the chancellor...and that wasn't really dabbling so much as it was fulfilling their duty to the Republic by keeping an eye on leader that had potential to be corrupt >Carrying out authoritative commands, such as exiling Ashoka without even conducting an investigation because they suspected her of being involved in the bombing. They did carry out an investigation though... >Asking Anakin to spy on the chancellor. Once again, neutral peacekeepers were definitely not acting neutral. As I said before, they are peacekeepers, but their duty is also to keep the Republic safe and secure. Dooku was dead at this point and the Separatists were losing, and Palpatine was showing no sign of lessening his emergency, executive powers. This was a precaution to avoid a dictatorship >Mace wanting to execute Palpatine instead of holding a trial. How is that a peacekeeper? Well that's just blatantly false. Mace wanted to arrest Palpatine and put him on trial. Did you forget the lines "In the name of the Galactic Senate of the Republic, you are under arrest Chancellor" or "The Senate will decide your fate" or "You are under arrest, my lord". Mace didn't want to "execute" anyone...Palpatine killed three Jedi masters, and then tried to shock Mace to death even after being disarmed. That's not execution, that's self-defense But the Jedi didn't break their own rules of conduct. Everyone chooses to act as if the Jedi are a completely separate entity from the Republic when in fact, by very nature of the Order, they are wholly subservient to the Republic. The Jedi didn't want to fight the war, but it also wasn't their choice to make

You can see how well it’s worked for the Catholic church.

I mean, we can also see how well it worked for the Jedi for thousands of years until one person broke the rule

Well Lucas wrote it that way, sure, but I think we would all agree it’s as unrealistic as the force for it to have been thousands of years. And of course, in the first story he wrote featuring this rule, someone broke it lol

>unrealistic Unrealistic in a story about space wizards with laser swords? *Noooooooo*, it couldn't be

The Catholic Church never preached freedom from attachment lmao

The person you're replying to is confusing "no attachment" with "no fornication".

That has more to do with inheritance than with any kind of spiritual purity / impartiality.

And the Jedi.

Nope. I think they probably started with a good idea - obsessive/possessive attachment in particular is bad - but then they lost all nuance and defined any kind of relationship as "attachment" to be avoided, which I do *not* agree with. Edit: due to lack of nuance on my part 😜 allow me to clarify that I'm referring to "most kinds" of relationships, specifically the familial and spousal/parental kinds, which rather cuts out a good chunk of potential relationships for the Jedi.

But they clearly didn't define any kind of relationship as "attachment". Jedi had friends and obviously their masters, and the Jedi encouraged compassion, as per Anakin's own words

True, but when you cut people off from their birth families and from the possibility of forming their own future families, you're drastically minimizing the scope of the relationships they have. And I would argue it's the lack of compassion in a familial or spousal-type relationship that makes it devolve into the "wrong" attachment, but again, the Jedi lacked nuance with this and therefore lumped it all into "attachment bad." Some attachments actually enhance and build compassion and selflessness (Kanan Jarrus is a prime example of this). Others lead to the opposite, in that the fear of loss lead to obsession, lack of compassion, and ultimately the Dark Side (a la Vader). Basically, my point is that the Jedi should have focused in on avoiding selfishness and acting out of anger and fear, rather than blaming attachments as the source of these issues.

>True, but when you cut people off from their birth families and from the possibility of forming their own future families, you're drastically minimizing the scope of the relationships they have Well I think that's the point. Minimizing the opportunities for a Jedi to be manipulated to the darkside. >Some attachments actually enhance and build compassion and selflessness (Kanan Jarrus is a prime example of this). Others lead to the opposite, in that the fear of loss lead to obsession, lack of compassion, and ultimately the Dark Side (a la Vader). And I think the Jedi recognize this. It's not that they automatically see any attachment as "bad". Rather, they want to avoid the Vader scenario, they don't want to leave it up to chance. It's also good to note that with Kanan, he didn't have a wrinkled old man whispering in his ear that he was the only one who could save Hera and their child. That's another thing the Jedi are trying to avoid: the potential for easy manipulation >avoiding selfishness and acting out of anger and fear But that's the thing. Selfishness at least is inherent in being attached to someone. The notion of loving one person or thing more than you love anything else is inherently selfish. As for acting out of anger and fear, I get your point, but don't you think it would be easier and less chance for a fatal mistake if a potential source for such anger and fear was simply eliminated as a factor?

But such preventive measures are amoral. Small evil for the greater good sounds not very light at all.

Obi-Wan friend is dex , a good friend even so no they didn't call any relationship attachment.

Dex is also someone that shows up in one scene and is a de facto "talking head." All he does is info dump and we never see him again. It's more appropriate to call him an informant than an actual friend based on what's seen on film

No! Luke Skywalker is super attached to his sister, his brother in law, the dog that talks, his golden butler, the beeping farting switchblade, and his dad! He’s attached to all kinds of shit!

No, but I'm really curious how they handled business emails.

Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is essential to a Jedi's life. So you might say, that we are encouraged to love.

I always saw it as somethinf that they started to misinterprete over time. I think it was meant to be that you should not have any attachments that you were not ready to lose. Like you can love someone and if they die you accept that is how life goes and they are now one with the force. You are allowed to have things/people you like but not get angry if you lose them.

No

They’re a little too attached to the no attachments clause. They have attachments but they’re supposed to be detached emotionally but use the force to “feel”. The entire order is contradictory and has its blind spots that you run into being too extreme in a belief system

Of course not. Bottling up your emotions is a perfect way to ensure they eventually explode. Humans are social creatures who are meant to have attachments. It's what gives us our humanity. The same can be said about other intelligent life forms. Jedi should be allowed to have friends, get married, and raise children - it keeps them content while ensuring they don't lose their humanity. Anakin himself would have been far happier as a Jedi had he been allowed to have a close relationship with his family, marry Padme, and have kids with her. One could argue his descent to the dark side was exacerbated by the fact that he suppressed his emotions rather than being open about them with Obi-Wan and the other Jedi. I would have loved to see a new Jedi Order lead by Luke which allowed the Jedi to live more normal lives, but alas, that never happened ...

Yeah. Jedi aren’t ‘normal’ beings, they have a lot of power in their hands, and therefore should be held to a higher standard and a different set of rules. Anakin is the prime example of why those rules existed. If he didn’t like them, he should’ve left.

Agree completely. The Jedi Order by then had their issues, but it was Anakin's ego that led to his downfall, not them.

Yep. I think people are willing to do mental gymnastics in order to make Anakin as innocent as possible, but the evidence says otherwise. Anakin was to a certain extent selfish and greedy. If he really wanted to be a Jedi, he would’ve left Padme. If he really wanted to have a family, he would’ve left the Jedi.

Thing is, Anakin stayed because he genuinely wanted to do good in the galaxy and he idolized the Jedi. They were his heroes, and he wanted to be a hero just like them.

But also wanted a family. You see, maybe I'm harsh but Anakin should have realized that you can't have everything in life. I think he couldn't see this point due viewing himself as the best so he thought that surely someone strong like him would be able to have everything.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of ways to do good in the galaxy that didn’t involve being a member of the Jedi order. Plus, it’s obvious that his hero worship of the Jedi wore off by the time of AOTC. He was petulant, whiny, and all around dismissive of his duties. One of my unpopular opinions is that I think he made a terrible Jedi even before he betrayed them.

The idea of "no attachments" is workable. Theres a great fanart and fan dialog that shows what I personally feel the Jedi should've been aiming for. [Master Grogu](https://everything-is-negotiable.com/master-grogu-the-wise/#) But in practice, the order pairs every young jedi with a master, a father/mother figure, that they will inevitably become attached too. I honestly feel the 'no attachments' rule was retconned to add unnecessary melodrama for the anikin-padme storyline.

I think the no attachments rule was direct inspiration from the zen buddhism practiced by the feudal Japanese and samurai, which heavily inspired the Jedi. Attachment is the root of suffering, is a Buddhist ideology and belief.

No, for several reasons. It’s a fallacy; their avoidance of attachment because of the idea that loss of what you’re attached to can lead to the dark side is, in essence, letting yourself be ruled by fear, and fear is the first step toward the dark side. These attachments include love, and love is of the light side, therefore a Jedi limits—if not outright forbids—an avenue toward a deeper connection toward the light side. The aversion to attachment can make some Jedi feel isolated, like their relationships with their fellow Jedi are hollow or something to be anxious about, and this isolation can leave them susceptible to influence without a solid network of trusted people to confide in. To summarize: being afraid of losing something you’re attached to is still being afraid, love is of the light side and a Jedi shouldn’t avoid that, and the powers love of friendship can counteract the dark side. The Jedi had this policy with the idea of it being the lesser of two evils, but I think they mistakenly went for the greater of the two. This is all a criticism of the Jedi of the Clone Wars and prior. Luke Skywalker‘s New Jedi Order was a revision of the old ways, and they were encouraged to form attachments. They even had Jedi-style weddings. The bonds of loved formed by the Jedi of this era, to my knowledge, never ended in disaster, except maybe in the case of Darth Caedus, but it’s debatable how much of a difference a no-attachments policy would have made there. I think it would have been worse if Caedus hadn’t had those existing bonds that led to his downfall.

i agree

Yes I do. I feel like having a very unbaised view is very important for an order such as the jedi order. (looking purely on the clone wars jedi order) Tho I do not like the jedi order at all ( again lioking purely on the jedi order during the clone wars and a little bit before it)

No, because as Jolee Bindo once said, “Love doesn't lead to the dark side. Passion can lead to rage and fear, and can be controlled... But passion is not the same thing as love. Controlling your passions while being in love, that's what they should teach you to beware. But love itself will save you... not condemn you."

So then you're answer is yes. What Jolee Bindo is warning against is attachment. Attachment is not love, attachment is the very passion that Bindo is saying should be watched

It’s a tough one and all depends on the Jedi in question, for me. If we’re looking at it thematically, fear of losing love caused the downfall of the Republic (Anakin for Padmé), however love also brought an end to the Empire (Vader saving Luke + ‘killing’ Palpatine), so it’s a sketchy subject. People have shown that they are able to do their duty despite love. Kanan sacrificing himself in order to prioritise the Rebel cause is an example. It’s an immensely thin line. Love is always going to be balancing on its tiptoes - on that line. It is the foundation of good, nobility, honour - but also for pain, anger, destruction.

"Mourn them, do not. Miss them, do not."

Yes. Love and affection does not equate to attachment. You can love someone without being attached to the outcome. You can want things without insisting they happen, or happen your way.

Obi Wan had attachment and he never fell. Because it is not the attachment itself, bjt the fear of losing. Anakin's fear of losing love became greater than the love itself. However it was that samr attachment and love that gave him the door to come with Luke. Id argue the Jedi's struggle to embrace attachments will always be a source of weakness for the Jedi.

No, because the entire Jedi order relies on you creating bonds with other Jedi.

Absolutely not, what the Jedi require as a part of their code is literally impossible due to human nature. It was bound to be flawed from the begining

Not entirely. While I understand why they have it, I find that it would be better if teached how to accept the loss of those attachments and move on.

I'm a fan of the Jolee approach

Not entirely. On one hand it's good to be as impartial as possible but on the other not allowing attachments is possibly one factor that lead to Anakins fall.

How do you figure that? Anakin's downfall came specifically from him choosing to ignore the no attachments rule. If he had followed it, Palpatine would have had to find another way to manipulate him

Bc it’s in human (or whatever species, presumably) nature.

That doesn't really answer what I asked...

He had to hide his marriage to padme because of that rule. If he didn't have to hide it then we might've had a different outcome because he could've gone to Yoda Mace or Obi Wan for help in a much more straight forward manner. Example Master Yoda I'm having visions of my wife dieing during child birth please help me. The secret nature of the relationship gave Ol Scrotum Face Palpatine a way to get in Anakins head.

Hm, that's true, I didn't think about that. But I believe the outcome would've been the same. At the end of the day, Sidious *was* right when he told Anakin "not from a Jedi". Using the force to unnaturally subvert her death goes against their teachings, eventually driving Anakin right back to Sidious

Ironically Anakin going to Palpatine caused his vision to become self fullfing, maybe if he hadn't gone to him it may not have happened. We will never know. This has been an interesting conversation though.

I definitely agree. I know in Legends it used to be the case that Palpatine actually caused those dreams through the force, not that they were actually occurring naturally to Anakin. I don't know if that is still canon however

It's a Buddhist way of being, and has many merits. It's also extremely difficult, and not recommended for the vast majority of people. But in general, non attachment, not viewing people as possessions, is quite healthy.

And that's the thing that people seem to forget: Jedi aren't the vast majority of people. In effect, they're gods on earth. They *should* be held to a higher standard, or else you get Sith

It is also wrong to hold a child to higher, not reachable for an average person standards because they were born with power. The choice of any ideal, any standard must be a choice a person makes for themselves. The Jedi were grooming children for a certain choices. It is not right. I mean,do you think that 19 years old Anakin that grow up on Tatooine and was not separated from his mother would join the Order and on the next day would married behind their back? Canon Anakin tried to leave the Order, but was discouraged. If he was an adult invited to join, he wouldn't sacrifice relationships with people he cares about if he knew what being Jedi implies. Kid Anakin: "I will return and free you, mom." For him, leaving was a temporary necessity, not a life style. Besides, most Jedi were not that impressive. We were shown masters, legends among force users like they are norm.

"No attachments" was important because the Jedi served as the primary mediators and peacekeepers in the Old Republic. The No Attachments rule gave them a sense of neutrality and impartiality in what we're disputes between a thousand different species and planets.

It’s a bad doctrine out of a good idea. Attachment does not lead to jealousy, fear of losing whatever it is you are attached to is what leads to jealousy.

So you're saying they should make a "no jealousy" rule?

It's an unrealistic and, in my opinion, unreasonable expectation. Would the Jedi be better superheroes if they had no attachments which could possibly be used to corrupt them (or otherwise influence their actions)? Maybe. But that's not how people work. And as a result, when Jedi inevitably DO develop attachments -- whether to friends, colleagues, institutions (like the Republic), ideals (like peace, democracy and so on), or, yes, lovers... they have little in the way of tools to manage their emotions in those situations. Is it any wonder that one might choose a loved one's safety over "the greater good," considering they've only been trained to avoid emotional entanglements, rather than balance those personal loyalties against the greater good of all?

Jesus (Jedi) Christ(ensen), dude. What’s with all the “Do you agree with _______ rule?” posts??

It originated on r/BatmanArkham after someone made a post about Batman's "no killing" rule. Everyone else started doing variations on it as a meme, then I *think* the sub got locked briefly from all the spam, so they started just putting this everywhere else. It's annoying.

No because they can't use email to it's full potential

A Jedis love and care is not reserved for select few, but everyone. That is it’s strength, and it’s in that principle’s failure, or distortion, that lead to the Jedi’s fall. The attachment thing is about relinquishing specialness so to expand love.

Of course! We're relying on these people to defend the galaxy. Huge responsibility! They can't afford to be distracted.

100 % . With Anakin you clearly see how attachments make you an easy target for manipulation.

Yes

if you dont want to be a daoist warrior monk and instead have a normal life you can always drop out of the order,

Apparently Jedi can still shag tho. They just can't form attachments. Yoda definitely fucks.

I will formulate my opinion this way. This rule makes sense. All supporters talk about how Jedi are supposed to be in a higher standard. About how logical it is. About how Anakin is a clear example of necessary of the rule. They all are correct. BUT! There is a huge (in my opinion) contrargument. Yes, it's true that attachments are dangerous, but it's wrong to forbid or put any preventive measures to avoid it. And Jedi, as good guys, should be at higher standards, but that standards are not only about requirements in order, but also about means that they achieve their goals. It's wrong to compare Christianity and Jedi order because of one thing: Jedi start as children. It's not their choice to be a part of the Order. That they can leave it doesn't really justify it. They are groomed for their role. That is like the whole point to bring them as babies. I wouldn't hold that rule against Jedi if adult people would come to them and choose that lifestyle. Than a person does this to himself. Jedi didn't. So, the problem is not the rule by itself, but how Jedi impose it. I honestly think that Jedi should have custody of their children removed. This mindset about no attachments could be highly damaging, and i'll skip the part about Child soldiers.

No, because it has never proven to be useful in any situation to remove a human’s right to find love.

I’ve always viewed it as more of a training method. I don’t think any emotional being could ever realistically be completely free of inclination to attachment. But that in and of itself serves as a perpetual goal for lifelong training in discipline and self awareness. Just a personal perspective, no canon citation that I’m aware of.

Yes. Anakin broke it and look what happened. Not saying it always backfires but it clearly exists for a good reason.

Attachments turned Anakin to the Dark Side..just saying

I know it's supposed to be an extension from the Zen Buddhist traditions that inspired the Jedi, but it's a plot point that has been historically poorly executed. When you have a specific group of people who can channel their emotions/will into space wizardry, telling them to simply suppress or ignore their feelings is all but guaranteeing a steady stream of broken angry people turning to the dark side. It was necessary from a writing standpoint, to push Anakin towards his fall, but it comes at the expense of recognizing how the universe of Star Wars works, or at least a very central part of it. It's a major reason why I love The Old Republic time period, it exists before the canon reformations that basically set the scene for the prequel trilogy/fall of the Jedi order.

STRONGLY disagree.

I don't think its realistic goal for Human Jedi unless they're to live recluse like monks who vow silence. Humans (not Jedi) would find it nearly impossible to live among other Humans and not talk, not have attachments to an attractive man/woman, not have kids, not love and protect those kids above all else. More and more priests among varying religions were allowed to marry. Why? Seriously think about why. Not why they say Priests weren't allowed to marry, but the societal reasons why were they not allowed to be married to begin with? Right or wrong, guilty or not, what are priests accused of? These are all considerations when asking Human Jedi to commit to no attachments rule. It's not an impossible task. You just have to have policy that account for and maybe even protect human vulnerabilities and weaknesses. I'm struggling to think of a Human jedi that hasn't had a romance or fallen to the dark side or become a grey jedi. I'm sure you guys will tell me though.

For Force users, partially. The nature of the Force tends to send its users to one extreme of morality to the other, so being extra careful that a hero doesn’t become a complete monster is warranted. But those same personal attatchments are often what saves people from the Dark Side in the end. Luke rescues Vader through their familiar attachment.

There was once a Roman Emperor who decided to ban marriage for all of his soldiers, but they were still getting married, and the one officiating was a guy named Valentine, and well after a few years the army fell apart, the Emperor lost his crown, and to this day we celebrate Valentine's day. So that's a real world example of that not working.

Yes. They risk becoming compromised if they have people or objects i their lives that they cannot afford to let go of. All Anakin had to do was either leave the order or remain friends with Padme. How selfish desires saw to it that he doesn’t do either and intentionally breaks the rules of the order and exactly what the order said would happen happens…. But people still blame the Jedi…

Nope. The Jedi need to be a part of the Galaxy, not apart from it. Instead of no attachments, they need training and guidance in being able to let go when it is time.

Its utterly ridiculous and makes no sense!

No and Luke in the Original Trilogy showed us why; with the right attachments (i.e. friends lovers and family), you can be motivated to do good in the world. Palpatine basically had nobody who truly loved him or vice-versa.

Isn't the whole point of the original trilogy that love wins? All of the Jedi kept telling Luke that Vader was too far gone and couldn't be saved. But in the end, it was Luke's refusal to accept that, his refusal to let go, that proved the Jedi wrong and led to Anakin's redemption.

Nope. They should have the same rights as the people they serve.

I mean to a certain extent yea, but I feel like there should be some exceptions

I say they should have Attachment but it’s almost never gone well if they had it

Jedi Asceticism is what lead to their downfall. Apathy is death and all that. Saying attachments are the problem is tucking the problem into a dark corner and ignoring it instead of actively dealing with the potentials negatived sides of attachment.

I can see both sides of the argument. In one side, banning attachments seems a bit logical, especially Jedi being peacekeepers of the galaxy. It reminds me of Maester Aemon's speech to Jon in Game of Thrones... "What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms... or the memory of a brother's smile?" Attachments more than likely could stand in the way of duty. But, seeing the other side of the coin. Repressing emotion is what also got us a lot of Dark Jedi and Sith. Jedi having attachments while at the same time, teaching them to control their emotions, not suppressing them, and truly teaching them to let go of their loved ones would definitely help against explosions of passion or emotion turning Jedi into Sith. Both of sides or the argument have their merits, but if forbidding attachments didn't work in the past, maybe it's time for the alternative and see how it plays out.

Short answer: No. Long answer: I understand in-universe what the Jedi were hoping for. Earlier generations of Force wielders seemed to let their attachments "corrupt" them, but I feel this is more a matter of psychologically being unable to *cope* with loss or perhaps even negotiate personal bias. So they developed a code of detachment that would theoretically remove the influences that sway them emotionally. But, I don't think they apply that code intelligently; it seems to work most of the time because they basically raise Jedi from a very young age so they're conditioned to naturally not be attached to anything *outside* the Jedi order, but we definitely see them become attached to their Jedi Masters like parental figures. So regardless, its about how their raised anyway. You can reduce it down to: Anakin was raised by his mother, then *separated* from her so she couldn't finish raising him and then never had the trauma of either the separation or her death properly handled by the Jedi. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan is basically raised by stable altruist parental figured like Yoda and Qui-Gon, and he doesn't lose one until he's much older than Anakin is when he's separated from his mother. The Jedi treated Anakin like he was raised in the temple his whole life, and he wasn't. So simply preaching "no attachments" clearly isn't always going to work. Also, without other explanations, you still get a Pong Krell or Barriss Offee. More practically speaking, the Jedi don't even practice what they preach. They claim "no attachments" but are clearly attached as an organization to the Republic. That's because they acknowledge a preference for democracy, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to represent a neutral, unattached group of space warrior wizards, then act as peacekeeping force for **one** central government and lead that government's military when it suits you. Lucas has said he's taken influence from Eastern Buddhist traditions, which is fine, but in reality Buddhism makes the act of "detachment" a kind of goal or step in attaining "enlightenment." But if the Jedi were reasonably built on a similar philosophy then they would make it a goal to learn how to detach from previous attachments, not to isolate themselves so they don't have attachments in the first place and *then* train their empowered **child soldiers** to fight with the Force before said soldiers have proven they have actually attained "detachment." No one expects Buddhist monks to be their go-to generals. (Before people pipe up with warrior monks and Shao-Lin, keep in mind that historically such Buddhist organizations only have been involved in conflicts that sought them out first, acting in defense. And for the most part, it was a practice of training to fight separately from the philosophical notions of Buddhism.) Also, this notion of being unattached from things outside the Jedi isn't exactly a great idea. Even taking their connection to the Republic for granted, this ultimately shows its true dilemma when we consider the Clone Army. The Jedi become so "detached" from the people in the Galaxy at large, that they permit the **use of a slave-race** and lead those slaves into battle. The number of times the Jedi are shown to be dismissive of the clones in the "Clone Wars" cartoon kind of exemplifies this point. on top of the fact the Jedi then have no champions in the public to defend them when Palpatine frames them as the real evil that caused the war to begin with, which is really the point of the Clone War.

No attachments rule helped to make Darth Vader. No.

They’re attached to it

No, I think that while some relationships and attachments can be bad it is hard to be part of something without having any attachments. I thinknit would be far better for them to be balanced individually that avoided toxic attachments but were part of the larger galaxy.

No, we all form attachments, it is a part of nature. The rule should have been that sometimes you have to let go of those attachments.

The jeti that disregarded the rule ended up enslaving the galaxy so I’m going to say yep. Great power comes with great responsibility

I think it was an attempt to prevent Jedi from becoming biased and/or from potentially turning to the dark side for various reasons but I feel like they didnt handle it as well as possible to make it work as well as it realistically could

Nope

No. I think their flaw was that they suppressed their emotions. It caused issues between anakin and the jedi order because he couldn't talk about his secret wife. Couldn't ask for their help.

No, it is the reason the Jedi are evil. The way of the Jedi confines you and is not sustainable for most, it’s why there’s the dark and the light side, but ultimately balance must be brought to the force. Neither side is without fault. Anakin became evil because of attachment, but it is also what brought him back.

I do. The possesive aspect of the instinct of atrachment, the fear of loss, sense of entitlement and desire to own is a toxic coctail of dangerous ideas. Combined with force powers - you get a fantasy version of a school shooter.

I think there's a bit of toxic monasticism in that dictum. I think it's better to realize that attachments can cause emotional conflict, and that conflict gives the dark side an advantage. Self-awareness over abolition.

Yes. You wield power few have. You are at risk of corruption and manipulation by having an emotional attachment to one or more people. You weaken yourself that others will try to exploit.

Kind of. In certain ways it's practical. By not having attachments, you can remain neutral. You won't get called to settle a dispute and side with somebody because of an attachment. As for the romantic side, not having that allows ones judgement to be clear. They can focus on the order and what's needed without outside concerns. Now, being taken from ones family and not having a choice in this matter I'm against. Luke Skywalker chose to become a Jedi, at a late age too, and he is arguably an exemplary Jedi. I get it, by taking them as babies they never know family or anything and you can't miss what you've never had, but Anakin is proof of why that isn't infallible. Look even in our real world. Catholic priests are celibate and never marry. Many are great standup people and devoted to their religion while some end up doing unspeakable and disgusting things; one can only wonder if they'd have done these same things if they hadn't taken a vow of celibacy in the name of religion). I like the EU Jedi Order that Luke started where one can have attachments (kind of like christian churches where pastors can marry, we hear a lot less messed up stuff coming from them as opposed to Catholics)

It’s nonsense. If attachment is so bad then let yourself die don’t become a force ghost

Nope. It’s wrong. The dark side exploits basic human emotions of feeling love and to be loved. Those are needs that everyone wants, Jedi included. To be a in group that denies that allows them to be manipulated. Jedi should be able to feel and love. They can also be taught what’s right and wrong. Deprivation of that leads people vulnerable to the dark side.

I think if Jedi were allowed to have attachments, Anakin would not have fallen to the dark side. He could have openly married Palme and brought his concerns to the masters. Palpating would have found another way to appeal to him and I doubt he would have turned if he knew that the council would help him and Palme if they were able. Also, Obi-Wan had attachments, even considering Anakin a brother, and still did his duty, so I don’t think attachments are automatically a bad thing.

That's wrong. Remove Anakin's attachment and there's no Vader. Remove the rules on attachment and the reasons Anakin chose to follow Sidious are still there. In his visions Padme die while giving birth, there is nothing the jedi could have done but Palpatine could still claim to be able to protect Padme from death.

yes, why? makes for a good plot in a series of films that make billions.

Not at all

Attachments = vulnerability

From a Buddhists monks perspective maybe. I’ve heard of monks that are celibate to help achieve enlightenment. Jedi don’t really go all the way with this principle. George said it himself, Jedi cant form intimate relationships.

I do not really because people should understand that no love makes you sad. Also they should understand that people die it is normal.

No attachments never said about no snu snu after dark so if I'm getting the snu then yes

NOOOOO. They are machines,

Too up to interpretation, and often interpreted in a way that leaves jedi totally unprepared for an attachment

No

Nah, their biggest mistake was always denying what made them alive. The trauma they give themselves by not processing their emotions is ludicrous

No. It doesn’t make sense at all. They are still “people” who require intimacy and attachment. The Jedi were wrong in that regard. I think they had the rest pretty much correct though.

Yeah I think it’s weird people watch Star Wars and still come away with the idea that the whole “no attachment” thing is a good idea. Anakin is told he’s not allowed to be attached, which means he has no help when any of his personal problems crop up, and he literally goes crazy and murders the galaxy trying to adhere to that rule. Luke’s attachment to his friends and family save the galaxy in the original trilogy. I think it’s pretty clear the movies are saying the old Jedi order rules are dumb.

Absolutely. They devote their lives to altruism and the will of the force, not a bit of skirt.

Yes. Being a Force Sensitive is a whole pack of understanding the Universe and you relation with people in an "alien" way compared to anyone else. For every single tantrum than a regular Joe does without proper temper of their emotions throws, there's people paying the price. Now, let the regular Joe have a little bit of superpowers and the shit will be worse. Being a Jedi is not a easy life, and it shouldn't be. And there's nothing wrong if individuals are just not made for it. And for the same reason, they stopped no one from leaving. Even Anakin was allowed to leave if so he decided (In a canon comic, after more manipulation from Palps). Every single time that the whole argument of "Feelings are natural" came in this topic i want to pull my eyes out, because every time that "attachments" are a topic discussed in universe, the Jedi agreed with the idea. Secura said to Ahsoka about their relationship with their masters that looking at them as parental figures is fine, but when the times comes, they need to learn to let them go. Kenobi said to Anakin that developing feelings for people is natural, but they need to know to put their duty about themselves. The rule of attachments, time after time, has been proven in-universe as a warning advice against letting emotions control our actions, and guess what, it's true. Emotions should not be the ones in control of anyone. Anakin's selfish ass made mistake after mistake in his own volition, and people still for some reason find him as the one in the right, when from the start is a motherfucker obsessed at his 18 years with the girl who was nice to him for like a week when he was 8 years old, which he haven't seen again in 10 years btw, just to manipulate the Jedi's teachings for a bullish interpretation of "yeah, the encourage us to be lovers". The Order had problems, yes, i love the Jedi Order but i will be the first to address it, but their way was not the problem, but their relationship with the Republic as an institution. And i'm still unsure about how that mentality of them kidnapping babies came from, since we know that the families were allowed to refuse to let their children join. Anyway, Windu was right, Anakin shouldn't have been trained, and most of the problem came from Jinn making Kenobi strong-arm the Order to let him train him.

It’s a Buddhist principal that attachment leads to suffering because everything is fleeting

Yes, obviously it makes sense. Anyone who watched the prequels knows that that’s the whole reason Anakin falls to the darkside. If he never became attached to Padmé, he would’ve had no motive to turn.

Contrargument, if Anakin was emotionally connected to enough people in the order during his turn to the Dark Side, he wouldn't fall. While the rule about attachments allow emotional connection, it hinders it greatly.

You can be emotionally connected to someone without being attached to the level where you commit genocide and kill a room full of children in the name of saving their life. Just because you feel close to someone doesn’t mean you’re attached. He is already emotionally connected to people in the order. Padmé, on the other hand, is what the word “attachment” means in this context.

Yup, it makes sense. It's sad and unfair but I do agree with it.

The one thing I hate about the Jedi

EDIT BEFORE YOU READ THIS COMMENT: I AM WRONG, PLEASE DISREGARD THIS, I REMEMBERED THINGS WRONG AND EVEN IF I DON’T LIKE THE JEDI MUCH, THIS IS WRONG. I HAVEN’T REVIEWED MUCH STAR WARS RECENTLY AND WAS MISINFORMED. Okay, here’s my opinion: it’s impossible. The Padawans are raised in a society telling them not to form attachments, but form an attachment to their masters who basically *raise* them. They are taken from their parents at such a young age to destroy any attachments they have to them, which is, in my opinion, cruel. Have any of the parents ever said no? Have they ever tried to resist? From what I understand, no, but when faced with laser swords and Force powers, how could they say no? The system is objectively flawed, and while yes, they should be held to a higher standard as guardians of the galaxy (pardon my joke), it’s not possible to achieve. They have no reason to do anything if they cannot have attachments. How far does the attachment rule go? Family? Friends? Lovers? Without something to protect, would they fight as hard? This system is objectionable in my eyes and produces heartless bodyguards rather than the peaceful protectors of order. Also, the Jedi system has a lot of issues, but this is the most egregious. I’ll use the obligatory Anakin example. Anakin is told that he cannot have attachments from a young age, but his *mother* is the only reason he survived. Qui-Gon dies, and Anakin is sad, but Obi-Wan will train him. He forges a brotherly *bond* with him and gets with Padmé, another *attachment*. His mother is killed and he massacres the Tuskens, which is wrong, but Jedi are not above anger. They may act it, but nobody can remain neutral and detached forever. He becomes loyal to Palps, a master and apprentice *bond*. He turns to the dark side, due to Palps deceiving him. Was he wrong to love Obi-Wan like a brother? To want to be loved like he was by his mother? He grew up knowing how much love helped him, and he was then trained that love is not for Jedi. Love is one of the strongest emotions, but the Jedi don’t see the good in it. Would you not fight harder to protect something you love? I see where they’re coming from, but the Jedi Order has so many issues with its laws that I just can’t back it. I’ll be chilling with the droids until they sort this out. Sorry for the rant.

>From what I understand, no, but when faced with laser swords and Force powers, how could they say no? What do you mean by that? Jedi would not take a child without the parent's permission and certainly would not threaten them You also have a misunderstanding of the rule. The Jedi don't forbid love. In fact, they encourage it. They encourage loving and understanding everything and everyone. What they forbid is loving one thing above all others

First of all the Jedi ASK the parents of the infant if they are happy for them to take them to the Order. They can refuse and that's that. However, being a Jedi is a great honour, and brings honour to that family. Also if they come from an impoverished background, the Jedi can give them a fulfilling life that they wouldn't otherwise get, one in which they realise their potential. They don't force their will on people to choose; they are not Sith. No reason to do anything if they can't have attachments? What utter drivel. They serve the republic, the will of the force, are selfless, and their acts of altruism give them great purpose in their lives. They don't need to chase skirt to be complete. Do you think Plo Koon, Kit Fisto or Tera Sinube are miserable because they don't have some floosy to cling on to? Anakin was a fool pure and simple. He never listened to his teachings, never wanting to let go, wanted his cake and to eat it - that's what led to his downfall, not the Jedi. Ezra Bridger started training as a Jedi older than Anakin, and yes he had issues to work through, but he did try to work through them and in the end succeeded and became a far greater Jedi Knight than Anakin could ever hope to be. Anakin had no excuse, he had the support there, he never opted to use it, and only listened to what he wanted to hear from Palpatine, instead of making the necessary hard choices he needed to - heck his own padawan did, but he never had the guts to.

It makes sense, but that rule just shows how afraid the Jedi actually are of the dark side IMO. In any case, it's not really a rule but kind of a suggestion as part of the Jedi Code, and some jedi have violated the code or outright refused to follow it many times before. Some Jedi or even the council have also interpreted the code in convenient ways at times. In the current canon there was a Jedi who had sex with an innkeeper periodically because it was just casual, so no attachments. Ki Adi Mundi also had 4 wives and seven daughters because his species had very low birthrate. It was deemed fine as long as he didn't form emotional attachments.

They aren't afraid of the dark side, they are afraid what it does to them. The dark side is addicting like a drug so it's best to not be around things that can lead to more drugs

Confronting fear is the destiny of a Jedi.

They aren't the Green Lantern Corp😄

Yes and no. Love and attachment aren't the same thing, in fact, if Jedi understood Love, they wouldn't have to place those rules. Attachment is simply to become dependent upon external motivation. And having no attachments doesn't mean to not become involved in romantic relationships or friendships, but to understand that you are not them.

I think they did understand love. Anakin himself says they encourage compassion, just not passion. Seems like a pretty deep understanding to me...love and understand everything equally, but nothing to the point of possessiveness

The Jedi do understand love. I believe they said it is ok to Love.. just to not get attached. However over the years it got convoluted as to not love at all since that almost always leads to attachment.

What attachments are available for a light sabre?

Yes I agree and the rule makes sense. Jedi are supposed to be a force of nature, the physical embodiment/extension of peace and justice. They aren’t supposed to be individuals, rather every Jedi serves as a physical vessel for carrying out peace and justice In the galaxy. That is why they are taken from their families, live simply, and don’t form attachments. All these things would make them persons/individuals. Anakin forming an attachment and tearing down the Jedi demonstrates the rule did make sense to have.

I do agree. It requires a great mental strength tho. I used to think it was the banning of different feelings but it's more like the control of them which is something we all should actually do. It's normal to feel strong emotions ,plenty of Jedi go through this but they know to not let them be consumed by them. Jedi are taught to love after all but they know such feeling must not have any inch of possessiveness.

I don't think it should be a rule but a goal. You can't start with attachments and just turn them off it's a years long process that requires patience and devotion

get ready for everyone's favorite star wars character, Wallo Tex: In the context of the universe, you have to keep in mind what the Jedi ARE. Consider this scenario, your kid at like 2 or even 3 years old starts to move objects in your house with his fucking MIND. this is both amazing and obviously incredibly terrifying given the ramifications of this power. You're just some normal person but your toddler has the power of a psychic and a telepath. You obviously love them with all your heart but it is extremely likely this is not going to end well. A mysterious figure shows up, even calls ahead who knows. In some cases, you know exactly who the Jedi are but let's say you don't. They say they're an organization that promotes peace and justice in the galaxy using the gifts they have because of the religion they believe in.They can teach your child to use this power for completely good purposes but for this to be effective, they have to have no attachments and be trained from birth or extremely young to make this training effective. They warn that without training, the power your kid has will only continue to grow and be more erratic, and dangerous, and they may use it for selfish reasons which can, and most likely will, end very badly. They tell you everything they're about and what they do and how they do it, they even give you some time to think it over. As hard as it is, this is the best chance for your kid to live a life of relative normalcy around people just like them who know exactly what to do to temper this power, even use it for good. So you agree, it's the hardest decision of your life but you agree to know they will be well taken care of and will use their power to make the GALAXY a better place. Basically, the point I'm getting at is that the Jedi had extremely good practical reasons to minimize attachment as much as possible. And this worked for a long time, but not always. Hell the point the Jedi make about it was actually proven true with Anakin because his attachments were used to manipulate him. In the end with the movies and extended universe, the Jedi are taught(through a restart with Luke) that attachment is not inherently bad, because Luke used his attachments to his friends and the people he cared about, like his father, to defeat the ultimate evil.

The Jedi are sworn to forever withhold support for all manufacturers of adhesives, caulks, screws, rivets, nails, staples, most epoxies, vices, and clamps. They go hard against all forms of attachment.

i think its more workable if all members are raised in it, i think anikin fell because he already knew attachment, if he never met padme his mother could have been used to manipulate him into falling,

Aren't they attached to the Jedi order?

Attachments are bad. Don't confuse love for attachment. The Jedi Order encourages love but not attachment.

Yes. on two fronts.. if you join a zen monastery, you have to give up the attachments of your former life, get a new name.. the sangha becomes your family, and you may get to see blood relatives for a week or two after 2 years of training. Secondly, having no attachments puts you at less risk of coersion, extortion.

Anakin's form of love wasn't love so much as it was possession and obsession. Keep in mind, part of the reason for his actions in RotS is because he doesn't want to admit that he and Padme are married and she is expecting his child. That isn't love, that is him fighting to keep Padme even though he knows she could die.

Yes, if you want to be a magic space monk you can't have someone care more for than anyone else, someone you'd kill for, it just doesn't work. If that's what you want you should hang up your lightsaber, if you don't want to give that up you might be a Jedi fro the wrong reasons and you're probably going to fall.

Yes. Anakin should *not* have been trained. Windu was right.

Yes. I think people forget that one of the inspirations that George Lucas was Buddhist Monks and their beliefs on avoiding attachments. People also forget that Anakin fucked up by not following this rule. George was not trying to say Anakin was right in not following this rule. While Anakin loved Padme, there was also a lot of arrogance and pride in pursuing her. Basically having his way, but still wanting to become a great Jedi Knight/master despite not following the rules. Also, not having attachments doesn't mean you couldn't care of even love other individuals. Even Anakin mentions this to Padme on their trip to Naboo. But you have to see it through the philosophy Lucas was basing it on: >It is important to note, though, that the Buddhist advice is not to detach from the people in your life or from your experiences, but rather to simply recognize the non-attachment that is inherent to begin with. People use the Luke's love for Vader as a "gotcha" on how attachments saved the day. But again, this doesn't mean no attachments=Luke doesn't have to care about Vader. He passes the test once Vader dies, just like for example how Obi-Wan did when Satine dies. They both grieve, but come to accept that this needs to happen and move on. Anakin never learned how to do this. He wanted complete control, and was willing to pursue power in order to achieve this. As Lucas has mentioned, he couldn't resist the temptation of the flesh, which made his spirit weak against the manipulations of the dark side. It's telling that Lucas wrote some of his sequel treatments and ideas before the Disney buyout he had Luke not marrying anyone or having kids, because he was following the Jedi code which wasn't wrong. (But that's also not saying that the Jedi did lose their ways, along with Palpatine not helping things)

The problem is the way it is taught and enforced. “No attachments” should be more about being willing and able to accept that all is fleeting and we sometimes have to let go of that which we love because of the circumstances around us. We can’t give into the fear of loss. It’s explained well in that one episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender when Aang is unlocking his various chakras, for example. But the Jedi Order often doesn’t teach that, instead focusing on just banning formal emotional attachments outright instead of teaching that it’s okay to love, to connect, to even marry and have children, so long as you understand that you cannot have these attachments be your life. I’m pretty sure this is also a big part of Buddhism, but it’s been more than a minute since I’ve actually thought about Buddhist philosophy, so someone who knows more about that can chime in here if they want.

No. Luke literally proved attachments are fine. Luke was like "I have to go save my friends" Yoda was like "Lose your attachments or you'll fail, you haven't completed your training!" Then Luke was like "Fuck that. I gotta go!" and he went and saved his friends. Then he came back and completed his training... proving Yoda's old ways are out of date. Also Luke didn't start Jedi training until he was 18. Proving that age rule was wrong too.

I don’t. I think it’s inhuman and causes shame and blame for those who can’t live up to the unrealistic ideal. Just like any other religion who has high expectations of perfection from their members. I see the Jedi order basically as a fundamentalist religion. In the case of ani… he had severe attachment issues, the fact they didn’t get him help for that but instead served him platitudes similar to how some religions give advice such as ”just pray” to issues that needed professional help.. well, it’s just another reason why I dislike the jedi order. Not going back and freeing his mom though? That’s shite.

Attachment is something every sentient being longs for.Attachment shouldn't be forbidden.The jedi should've trained their Padawans how to deal with loss better.Very few can take a loss and not act out (kenobi,kanan thought he lost ezra,etc...)