#compassionate vs possessive love
I’m starting to think that some fans of star wars don’t understand the rules of attachment when it comes to the jedi.
I’m starting to think you don’t know that it was that attachment Luke had for his father that made Anakin get back to the light. My advice. Watch the great Original Movie Return of Jedi. It will open your mind.
It wasn’t, tho. It was unconditional love, which is definitionally not attachment
Attachment would have been Luke refusing to let Anakin die and doing messed up tgungs to prevent it, or prioritizing saving his father’s life at the expense of innocent people (and since the plan was to blow up the Death Star with Vader on it, that’s not the case either).
My advise: Watch the great Original Movie The Empire Strikes Back. Shows exactly why Attachment and the Inability To Let Go will lead to reckless action that endangers those you love. It will open your mind.
Luke went on the Death Star to prevent Vader tracking him and ruining his friends’ plans, not because of an attachment to Vader.
Luke managed to stop himself from killing Vader in order to save Leia.
Luke managed to accept his friends might die in Emperor’s trap, he managed to respect their decision, to let go of his attachment to them and rather throw down his lightsaber than step away from the light side.
Luke respected Anakin’s request to take off his helmet even though he knew he will die and Luke will lose him. But he lets go and does as Anakin requested because Luke makes it about what Anakin wants.
Anakin was ready to destroy the galaxy to keep Padme. That’s attachment. Luke isn’t ready to go against his father’s single wish to keep him. That’s compassion.
Whole sequence on the Death Star in The Return of the Jedi is Luke managing to let go. And thanks to this… the Jedi return.
I mean, the “no attachments” thing has been there since the original trilogy:
“Remember, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”
And was continued in the prequels:
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
“Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is. Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose.”
(Yes, I know it’s all Yoda but you get my point.)
Attachment is the root of suffering (see: Buddhism). It is very difficult for people to accept that loss is inevitable, since we are afraid of losing. It’s also very difficult to not feel anger when someone you love is wronged.
It is acceptance of that inevitability and learning to let go that the Jedi are espousing, not the denial of love, because attachment is not the same as love. The Jedi love, too. Whether you’re more familiar with Western or Eastern philosophy, there’s a fundamental truth to love that we can all agree on — love is selfless, love is kind. What the Jedi are against is love turning into something else, something selfish and ugly, without so much thought as to its consequences.
I agree with this, and I’d add that it’s been present in the films as more than just “this is a rule the Jedi have”, and more that non-attachment is a philosophy that’s been informing the story from the very beginning (or, you can think of it as “Jedi teachings reflect the worldbuilding’s underlying philosophy” if you prefer).
For instance, in ANH we have Leia rebuking Tarkin: “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” And the victory later in the film is achieved by Luke following Obi-Wan’s directive to “let go”.
These examples aren’t about letting go of other people, but they’re coming from the same place - non-attachment is much broader than accepting personal loss. It’s also about giving up attachment to things and outcomes and such. It’s accepting that there are things outside of your control. Death is the big one, of course, so it gets a lot of attention in the story (and also because it’s a more sympathetic and dramatic struggle, than, say, getting upset because your plans for the day got changed on you without warning…a form of attachment I personally struggle with and was especially bad with when I was younger), but the broader concept has been present in, even fundamental to, the story from the very first film. So, yes, OP is entirely correct - this is not something that was introduced by the prequels just because the exact word “attachment” wasn’t used until then (and really it was only directly used twice there, at that).
Even Han and Leia don’t get to have a happy relationship until Han learns to let Leia go. He’s hounding her, dragging her with him on the Falcon, forcing intimacy when she says no, he’s pressuring her to talk when she’s not ready, losing his temper because he’s jealous of her and Luke… but it’s not until he completes his character growth, lets her go, and lets her be a free person who makes her own decisions that they truly get their happily ever after (shut up).
Han: I’m sure Luke wasn’t on that thing when it blew.
Leia: He wasn’t. I can feel it.
Han: You love him, don’t you?
Leia: Yes.
Han: All right. I understand. Fine. When he comes back, I won’t get in the way.
And THAT’S when they get together.
This stuff is. all. over. OT.
all attachment disk horse sounds extra stupid when you replace the word ‘attachment’ with its synonym ‘possession.’ ‘it is impossible to love without possession’ oh really. now i know the trope of the possessive boy/girlfriend/spouse or of the parent that cannot let go of their child is extremely common, but let me assure you that those are not healthy relationship ideals to aspire to, nor must all real world relationships be like that
Anakin literally goes from being ready to destroy everything and everyone to save Padme’s life to trying to kill her when he realizes he doesn’t possess her. “Your life is worthless if it’s not mine” is not really a healthy relationship.
