I disagree. They aren't ordinary. They are incredibly powerful beings who lead,and are sometimes led around, by what bounces between an incredibly powerful forcefield and a seemingly sentient river. They are not us and are not to be treated as us, especially since the entire franchise seems to treat the temptation of the dark side as a real, tangible thing. It's like the devil-but real. We don't have that and we're already really shitty when it comes to dealing with power and attachment. We also don't have the pressure of being the diplomats, emergency police and last-ditch soldiers and..when we're still really shitty with power.Borgholio wrote: Jedi ARE ordinary people. Just ordinary people with telekinetic powers and such. Just because they are in touch with the Force doesn't mean their brains are wired differently. They still love, hate, like, dislike, etc... They still have favorite foods, hobbies, and individual political beliefs. Telling them to beware of hate and anger is fine...that's good advice for everybody. But telling them to avoid loving someone? Telling them to avoid the good as well as the bad? Telling them to turn off all but the most simple emotions? That's not natural. It's no surprise that the more you try to control human nature, the more likely that someone will rebel against it.
As for Jedi rebelling against emotion:some do. Others...do their job. It's convenient to just claim that suppressing emotion leads to a backlash, but how many Masters were paralyzed like Luke and Mara in the OT? How many knights almost fell like Jaina?
The difference? Luke being saved by his father was a long shot. Anakin being falling did not have the same randomness. I'm struggling to easily summarize it but I suppose the quick version is:if the Council had done everything right they wouldn't need the sort of reckless random gambit that Luke resorted to,same for Luke himself. Just because a shitty strategy works doesn't mean that it wasn't a shitty strategy.On the one hand, it was Anakin's attachment to Padme (and to a lesser extent, his mother) that led to his downfall. On the other, Luke's love for his father saved the galaxy. So the movies kind of tell us two different things.
I suppose you could analyze the differences between the two to see how it goes, but I'm not up to that sort of thing right now so I though I'd leave it here for other people to ponder. There is one thing I'd like to address, though:
This is irrelevant to the question of whether the Jedi's rules about attachment were sensible though. Whether Anakin gets training or not, he is one Padawan, just because the Jedi were in a tough spot and let Obi-Wan train him instead of just locking him in the temple forever doesn't mean that the following failure was not because they let him get trained.Except that it's not Anakin-centric and it does challenge your point -- that if the Council had refused Anakin training that nothing would have happened. My argument is that there is no scenario where Anakin would not have received some form of training.
Maybe Anakin gets trained, so what? Doesn't change the fact that he was unsuitable from the start, and the Council knew this. Not suspected, knew. That was their big failure, not not accommodating his problems.