Obi-Wan versus Vader (Spoiler!)

By -
I didn't get around to this issue in my review of Episode III, but I was puzzled by Obi-Wan's victory over Vader. Although the movies indicated that Obi-Wan was one tough Jedi (e.g. he singlehandedly took out Darth Maul after the latter had beaten Qui-Gon, and Obi-Wan jumped into the fray all by himself against that robot guy [his name escapes me] with 4 lightsabers plus all his droid cronies), clearly we learn that Anakin is better.

Of course, we knew going into the film that the two would fight each other, and we knew that Obi-Wan couldn't die, and that (probably) Vader was going to be seriously injured. (I say probably because Vader could've been injured in a different way.)

What I thought was going to happen is that Padme would've intervened--"Anakin, no!"--and this distraction would allow Obi-Wan to get away. But no, what actually happened is that Obi-Wan flat out beat him.

How so? Well, Obi-Wan says, "Don't try it, I have the high ground" or something like that. At the time this literally referred to his physical location on the bank. But perhaps in a deeper sense, Obi-Wan wins because he is right and Anakin ultimately knows that he (Anakin) was in the wrong.

Finally, why doesn't Obi-Wan finish off Vader? Three possible reasons:

(1) He can't bring himself to kill his old friend.
(2) He thought Vader was dead for sure, anyway.
(3) He still believes Anakin is the Chosen One. (And this is fulfilled in Episode VI, remember.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more