Talk:Philosophy and religion in Star Wars

Untitled
Request: citations from the works of various religions.

Joseph Campbell
I am not a huge Star Wars fan but do like it. Anyway, if Star Wars could be traced to a single influence it would be Joseph Campbell. How is he not mentioned in this?

Savagedjeff (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unadulterated"
The following quote from the article is quite humorous:

"the Empire minions almost always spoke with British accents whilst most of the Rebels spoke unadulterated American English"

First, there is no such thing as a "British accent" - they speak proper (unadulterated) English. Other English speakers, including Americans, are the ones with the accent. Americans speak English with an American accent. The sentence should more accurately be written...

"the Empire minions almost always spoke proper English, whilst most of the Rebels spoke with American accents" --Daniel 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You said it, mate. Visitor 08:36 24 April 2007


 * Very well, I've made the alteration about accents in the article.--Daniel 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * by NPOV, both are "accents", and should be noted as such. Whateley23 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i would say here that the difference is not so much in terms of a regional accent as it is Upbringing, the ones you note as speaking "proper english" are usually descended from some sort of nobility. or with in a power structure with-in the empire/republic (such as the moffs) that requires them to present themselves in a dignified and noble manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akira84729 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Stoicism
There should be more reference here to similarities with Stoicism, which are extensive. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to add them myself now, but see the book "Star Wars and Philosophy".--Daniel 17:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous conclusion to technology examination
"This concept emphasizes the general idea that technology is in opposition to humanity."

...except that the good guys also use technology: space ships, light sabres, droids, etc.

The movie does NOT put technology in opposition to humanity, it puts diversity and social awareness in opposition to conformity and totalitarianism. The Ewoks are underestimated by the Empire because it regards them as little more than animals, but they are shown to be intelligent beings that can utilize technology: they have a culture, and the ability to create a variety of traps and possess numerous weapons such as slings and bows and arrows.

The movie shows the Empire as misusing technology to suit its own selfish agenda, at the cost of other people's freedoms; and it depicts most of the Rebels as utilizing more-or-less the same types of technology in order to fight the Empire and stand up for freedom and justice.

Technology, like the force, is represented as a double-edged sword with a light and dark side, depending on the intentions and character of those who wield it; and furthermore, it is these which decide how effective the use of technology will be, rather than it merely being tecnologically advanced. Technology, like the force, is an unchanging and neutral aspect of life, but whoever is manipulating it will draw on its dark or light sides depending on what kind of person they are.

P.S. The section on Sikhism is way too long and sounds like a sermon. Rglong 05:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye Sikhism section
OMG I just read through that, and it was just one guy's personal experience with his religion. Um, hi, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Axed it.

Also a random paragraph at the end speculating on the prophecy, made no sense where it was, and it sounded like fan theory rather than actual theory. Gone.

SIGN YOUR POSTS(Esskater11 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

Star Wars and AI
While the clone army and the droid army were ment to contrast, there is clearly some sort of personality to C3PO and R2-D2. They both show a willingness to disobey orders and emotions. C3PO tried to comfort Han in one episode and he shows pity, ironically towards humans for having emotions. While it is difficult to discern in R2-D2 because you cant understand him, he is constantly arguing and insulting C3PO. Also in one of the bounty hunter novels there is a kleptomaniac droid with Zuckuss who tries to learn about the force and intuition, i think he goes to the jedi temple. There was also something about how protocol droids are meant to simulate human emotion, but how is a simulation different. I think there was something about protocol and astromech droids being likely to develop personalities and thus should be mind wiped regularly.Iceberg1031 02:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I concur. The author is incorrect in his suggestion that the droids lack the ability to think for themselves. On the contrary, R2 often shows signs of infantile behaviour, suggesting at least basic emotional feeling. This author wants to establish a piece of information as fact so that it can be disseminated as a part of his larger scheme of propaganda. An edit seems in order, though I'm not qualified to do that myself.--Elder of zion 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism ??!!
This is ridiculous. I don't object to there being something on it, but not like 5 paragraphs! Further no references whatsoever. I'm deleting it.

Lucas's Comment
I think I understant Lucas's comment about the dark side being stronger. Perhaps he was reffering specifically to combat. The dark side is, after all, the path of destruction, thus it would stand to reason that in combat for personal gain, the dark side has an edge. The light side is that path of virtue and is primarily used only to help others and is more powerful at creating things. For example, the Republic was supported by the light side and lasted 25,000 years. The Empire, a dark side entity, started falling apart after less than 30. Emperor001 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Essay or Encyclopedia Article?
Mark2680 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)I do not dispute the fact that this piece is thought-provoking and generally well-written, but it reads more like an academic thesis - which may be overstating its validity, considering the stark absence of any citations or a reference section - than an encyclopedia article; that is, it consists of the author's attempt to make a case through the development of an argument, and this may not be the best venue for such an endeavor. I've no issue with the quality of the work, just its appropriateness in this particular context.

Starwars and religion
Today i had some external links to provide some background and sources for this article. I am sorry i don't have the time yet to add the content and footnotes now. I'll try to come back later, but let this so someone make take profit of it. Menant (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional love
I think this should be added, the talk about the unconditional love and its link to Buddhism. It is a important part in Buddhism. I'm not that good of a writer, so I'd hope that someone else would ad this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flisespikkern (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree here, the concept of altruism and unconditional love is central to the idea of the force and teaching young-lings and Padawans. though it may not have been clearly emphasized that is the essential core of the Jedi teachings from well into the Old Republic Era forward. especially if you review the time from the formation or the new order post BBY to after the Yuuzhan Vong War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akira84729 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

George Lucas' statement about the Dark Side being more powerful
Just because George Lucas says that doesn't mean it's true. I think this is his opinion of it, and I don't think that it's necessarily true. It's really up to the viewer to interpret if the Dark Side is more powerful or not. In my opinion, there's no sign that it is. It seems like it's just that the Light Side controls their powers, and the Dark Side will let it go untamed and spew it off at anybody who gets in their way. I think it's more like the Light Side knows how to restrain themselves, and the Dark Side does not. I think calling the Dark Side more powerful is the equivalent of calling a child who throws hissy fits left and right the stronger child than the one who is quiet and is content with its surroundings. Just because one side does not show more power does not mean that that side does not have it.Ricetotherescue (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:original research. Yoenit (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review
This article fails to satisfy Wikipedia inclusion policies. The subject is not notable. The article is not verifiable and is clearly Original Research. Editing will not improve it, the subject as the article defines it is not encyclopedic, and the article provides no substantive evidence.

Two related subjects that may be of encyclopedic interest are 'the Philosophy and Religion within the fictional Star Wars universe' and 'the Philosophical and Religious sources of the Star Wars movies'. This article does not authoritatively address either of these subjects.

I propose Deletion Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.130.25 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review Comment
Proposing Deletion Review for following reasons: The subject is not notable. The article is not verifiable and is clearly Original Research. 93.182.190.72 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there 93.182.190.72, and thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, I think the previous deletion discussion demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that this topic is notable, so I don't think the article will be deleted. (You are, of course, welcome to try by sending it to Articles for deletion, but I fear it will be a waste of time.) However, I fully agree that the article isn't verifiable and that it is original research. When I have a spare moment I think I will come back and turn this article into a stub with some of the sources mentioned in the deletion discussion. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the article to Star Wars, for the second two reasons the IP mentioned - the article is unverifiable and consists entirely of original research. I have nothing against recreating the article if someone is willing to properly source it, but we can't just keep articles around if they have absolutely no material that fulfils Wikipedia's core content policies. I decided to redirect instead of stubbing the article, as stub text could easily be included in another Star Wars article, so there is only a point in having this one if it is of a decent length. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note to those involved - I actually have a few books at home that specifically address some of the philosophical and religious parallels in Star Wars. (I wish I could remember specific titles, but I'll have to go home and check.)  They were written back in the late 1970s and so really apply only to Episode IV, but they're good sources and I think I might be able to glean a few citable things from them (and perhaps even cite some of the material that's there).  If no one objects, I would sort of like to take this on as a bit of a research project and see what I can find on it.  I'm fairly confident that I can find good sources that I can use to clean up this article, and I'd like the chance to try.  Cheers.  Sleddog116 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Major concepts in major works can be justified as the subject for a separate article. The centrality of this topic throughout this particular work is very evident, and the work itself is of course not just a major work, but famous. I thing good source will be available, though it's not a field I usually work in myself. Wikipedia's detailed coverage of some types of fiction is one of our great strengths, and those uncomfortable with it can ignore it. The fiction minimalists can solve their discomfort with it by working elsewhere, as I solve my discomfort with some of the coverage of some types of entertainers.    DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To DGG, Sleddog, and anyone who feels like rewriting the article - there is a good list of potential sources in the previous AfD discussion. There's no question about the notability here, in my mind. Also, I'm removing the RfC tag, as it doesn't look like there is much else to discuss here. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman political science
There are many references to the ancient Roman republic that Star Wars is modeled after. Please add those in the political section.99.226.242.202 (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect
I've merged some of this content over to Jedi and The Force (Star Wars). A discussion about it took place at Talk:The_Force_(Star_Wars). Most of the material here overlaps with critical analysis of the role the Force plays in Star Wars and its comparisons to ancient religion and spirituality. The Force articles offers a more substantial treatment of the topic. I don't dispute the notability of this subject, but after two AfDs to nudge progress, coverage here is fairly limited and this article hasn't developed beyond a stub. Per User:TAnthony's suggestion of a merge (which I've already done), I'm going to redirect this article to The Force (Star Wars). If editors decide to spin this back out and offer a broader treatment of the topic (e.g. philosophy behind the Empire, the spirituality of non-Force users, whether droids have souls, etc.), go for it! --EEMIV (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)