mars @nqro - Tumblr Blog

here's to another year of being a substance abusing pseudo intellectual

#i feel oddly exposed #.#happy new year!

I admit I'm fed up with seeing people talking about mental health in Star Wars when it's obvious they don't know anything about it beyond hearing the terms that have become popular, and even many of those terms have been transformed and their meanings changed on social media.

I mean... I don't know, but if you think that a character like Obi-Wan couldn't have had a horrible past (like the one the books explore) because all his flaws are automatically glossed over, that's very simplistic to me.

I think having a tragic past and certain traumas could better explain the reasons for his actions (But honestly, I feel that most people in Star Wars don't want to understand the characters; they want to justify them, and that bothers me).

If Obi-Wan was abandoned on a mission because he didn't want to follow the rules, perhaps that could explain why he begins to internalize the code with a harshness and rigidity that later extends to how he interacts with Anakin.

That life event helps him internalize rules as security. If he broke the rules and didn't feel safe, his mind might translate that as rules = security, creating a mental structure that persists into adulthood.

It's not that the abuse magically absolves him of his sins or failings; it simply explains his behavior.

Have you ever seen people develop the most harmful defense mechanisms against themselves? Well, that doesn't erase their trauma, no matter how strange, intense, or challenging those mechanisms are.

A person can be a jerk regardless of their traumas and mental health issues. These don't give anyone a free pass to be an idiot; however, they do help us understand people's behavior and work on their actions and beliefs to achieve change.

Anakin may have a lot of traumas and mental health issues, just like Obi-Wan; and both can be jerks (which they often were) and make many mistakes.

People with mental health are people with their own agency and responsibility, and if you believe that a tragic past erases all mistakes, then, in my opinion, you're not trying to understand the character, but rather justifying them, and that feels so wrong because you're taking away their agency, their responsibility, and their potential for change.

I was never particularly a fan of the humanist movement, but sometimes I think that in these discussions, some people might benefit from reading about humanistic psychology, especially the work of Viktor Frankl, who emphasizes how it's impossible to separate a person from their context, but it's also impossible to take away their freedom to choose. Both dimensions coexist because they are profoundly human, and removing either one largely erases what makes a human being truly human—a being of agency, flaws, and qualities.

Obi-Wan and Anakin make terrible decisions every day, some they're aware of, others they're not; that doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

And understanding their actions doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

Obi-Wan lied to Anakin constantly, dismissed Anakin's feelings out of ignorance, was rigid and sometimes too lenient with his training; he made countless mistakes, but he also had successes.

Anakin lied to Obi-Wan countless times, hiding the Tusken Raiders from him (out of fear, mistrust, and perhaps guilt), and acting behind Obi-Wan's back on many occasions.

All the characters in Star Wars are very contradictory and often hypocritical. Their past doesn't serve to redeem or whitewash them; it helps us understand the character, just as in real life, our pasts help us understand people.

Understanding where Obi-Wan and Anakin come from helps us understand them, not justify them.

Because even though they may have shared similar experiences, they are not the same. They share profound differences in character and context, which shape how they internalize that experience and how it molds them into who they are.

Two people, even if they share the same trauma, will experience it differently because they are different people and will have different defense mechanisms.

(On a positive note, I see that the obikin community rarely does psychological analysis, and when they do, it's usually about very specific aspects and is generally very respectful, which I really appreciate. I see many people in general tags or tags for other ships speaking too freely without any knowledge of mental health [which is noticeable, let me tell you, because they repeat prejudices or say very problematic things that often lack sources]. At least here I see more calm and respect for mental health issues, and that brings me more peace.

Perhaps someday I'll talk more about psychology and obikin, but I'm hesitant because I have too much respect for mental health [my university degree] and I wouldn't want to end up repeating something dangerous).

nqro

i’m so glad i found this post, you’re speaking my mind on every point.

obi-wan definitely uses the code (or his internalized interpretation of it, as well as his relationship with the light side of the force) as a coping mechanism. simply put, it’s his safe haven. he clings to it because it means he’ll be accepted and won’t be “scolded.” and because it’s easy, gives him a sense of safety and security, as you yourself said, and helps him navigate his own sense of self. this naturally extends even into how he functions as an adult, constantly fearing he’ll be berated for his conduct (by yoda or mace, or whoever he sees as an “exemplary jedi”) if he strays from his own idea of jedi-appropriate behavior. and if he does stray, he punishes himself and spirals into guilt as a way of atoning for his perceived misbehavior—for his sins. i’m, of course, exaggerating a bit.

(i think karen miller’s wild space gives a great insight into obi-wan’s character.)

it often seems like his whole identity revolves around being a good jedi—around being perceived as a good jedi, worthy of the title, worthy of the order, worthy of himself (but that’s just a small part of the whole issue. people are complex, and what applies in one instance doesn’t necessarily apply in another).

to say he doesn’t seek validation, just as anakin does, would probably be foolish. i saw you mention the term “problematic child” in another post, and i think it applies to obi-wan to some extent as well. from my limited knowledge, he displayed many of the same characteristics as anakin. like anakin, he was perceived as rebellious and troublesome, and he was constantly seeking validation and acceptance. as a result, he learned to suppress some of his impulses and developed a very limited set of traits that he allows himself to display.

so yes, he’s very contradictory in many ways, a perfect conundrum. constantly in conflict with parts of himself (a very human thing to experience, something he seems to deny himself repeatedly), a fact that becomes even more apparent in his complicated relationship with anakin. maybe it’s that he subconsciously perceives anakin’s behavior as an extension of his own. and maybe he projects just a little bit: wanting to deny anakin the same things he denies himself (because if he denies anakin, he basically denies himself, right?), and yet, at the same time, he doesn’t really want to. he wants anakin to thrive and be free from the same hardships he had to experience in his own possibly traumatic childhood, and yet…

relationships are mirrors, and it becomes quite apparent that, in many ways, obi-wan and anakin reflect each other on more than just one level. they do become true extensions of each other. contradictory in some ways, complementary in others. different names for the same thing, depending on one’s point of view (that’s just my opinion, though, you don’t have to agree).

(so do they bring out the worst in each other? or do they bring out the best in each other? a question i often see people asking, and not necessarily the one we should be asking. but if we do, i think there should be an additional question to expand on that: how do both options create a specific environment in which a relationship can evolve, allowing for individual development and self-reflection…)

the real question is whether obi-wan realizes this or not. i believe he does, to some extent at least (whether consciously or subconsciously). it’s probably where most of the tension between him and anakin comes from anyway. he fears for anakin, he’s angry, he’s envious, he’s attached to him in a way he knows he shouldn’t be, he wants to let go and he doesn’t… so many pent-up, conflicting emotions in one man, and then people call him the bastion of calm and serenity. well, he’d be glad to hear it

(this is all just speculation on my part, so feel free to disagree)

onlygships

Thank you for your contribution.

I really enjoy talking about character psychology when people aren't focused on justifying or labeling someone as good or bad, but simply seek to understand their behavior.

You mention that the relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan is like a mirror, and I completely agree. Many parents, siblings, or even teachers unconsciously project their own experiences onto their charges and try to guide them down the path they themselves wanted to be guided on, often without considering whether this applies to the other person. I think Obi-Wan does this with Anakin on many occasions.

Obi-Wan may see Anakin as he once saw himself: "a troubled child." He may try to give him the security that worked for him (the Jedi Code), not because he's bad and hates Anakin, but because he's applying what he knows "works," and he may even find it difficult to understand why it doesn't work for Anakin.

Obi-Wan may see Anakin as he once saw himself: "a troubled child." I believe that Obi-Wan punishes himself with more repression and even reflection, reflecting on his actions, finding them culpable, and further repressing the negative impulses that lead him to act that way.

I would even venture to say that Obi-Wan tends to rationalize what happened (a trait that Anakin also displays on occasion). I would even go so far as to say that the relationship he has with Anakin is perhaps the relationship he wanted to have with Qui-Gon.

He transforms into what he wanted and needed; it could be an unconscious way of healing himself or of finding the stability he lacked as a young man. If he transforms into that version of Qui-Gon he wanted, he may think that in doing so he will spare Anakin the suffering he endured as a padawan, without realizing that the master Anakin needs must have different characteristics.

Obi-Wan sees himself reflected in Anakin, finding him so similar yet so different that it makes him uncomfortable. Anakin breaks down many of his mental frameworks, forcing him to restructure them, and Obi-Wan doesn't want to lose those frameworks because they are what give him peace. If he loses them, there is no peace. If he doesn't follow the rules, there is no peace; if there is no peace, he is lost and reverts to being the troubled young man he once was.

(What you mentioned about young Obi-Wan wanting to belong seems very accurate to me because young people, and everyone really, seek to belong to something, to create a community in some way. Many fans tend to talk as if Obi-Wan never sought or wanted validation, but I think Obi-Wan shows that he does, even though he tries to suppress it. In the end, both Anakin and Obi-Wan seek validation and belonging, but they seek and find it in different ways. Obi-Wan can find that belonging in sharing ideas and adhering to rules; Anakin finds that belonging in people).

I think Obi-Wan isn't fully conscious, because being fully conscious requires self-analysis and discomfort; I don't want to bring Freud into this, haha, but I'm going to. Defense mechanisms (specifically Freudian ones) are there to protect people from discomfort. The mind doesn't want to suffer, so it finds ways to protect itself, and Obi-Wan has them.

So I think Obi-Wan has a lot of unconscious content that, when it reaches the conscious level, will cause him a lot of pain, uncertainty, and general discomfort. Therefore, he may avoid analyzing many of his actions or mental structures to avoid discomfort and change.

(I'm glad someone enjoyed this post. I only originally wrote it because I was really bothered by the misogynistic insults and how the work of female Star Wars writers who delved into Obi-Wan's character was being devalued. I just wanted to share because, to me, what they wrote doesn't sound as far-fetched as many claim, hahaha).

nqro

this will be a bit lengthy, i realized that about halfway trough writing it, but since i’d already scribbled it down, i figured i might as well share it. i’ll just warn you that i strayed quite heavily from the original topic. or perhaps i didn’t, but that’s for you to decide.

complex deep dives into character and narrative analysis is something i enjoy quite a bit (even if it’s oftentimes difficult to express my thoughts through words alone), especially when it allows me to understand deeper principles that drive people to act in certain ways (doesn’t matter whether it’s in fiction or reality).

the human mind is fascinating (it creates fascinating things), and the way it is structured, and how it subsequently structures the world around itself, even more so. so it always saddens me that many people are usually happy to settle for surface-level interpretations and oversimplifications of key concepts, or aggressively repeat ideas they’ve absorbed and added to their often limited collection of opinions. and as much as i don’t like it, i think it’s understandable.

people like straightforward approaches; they dislike uncertainty and complication of any kind. (this extends even into the realm of how they think about their favorite characters and what they project onto them, because at the end of the day, most of it revolves around that: projection.)

and it’s uncomfortable for them because it forces them out of their mental safe spaces that help shape their whole lives. it’s also easier to navigate life in a way that doesn’t burden their minds with ideas they cannot anchor to familiar concepts.

and perhaps that’s alright. but then, naturally, the result is that they tend to veer into the territory of either-or, black-and-white thinking, or get stuck on clichéd, readily available generalizations that have little to do with reality, the characters themselves, or any broader perspective. (and while i don’t want to disregard that way of thinking completely—everything has its place and exists for a reason, i suppose—i do think it’s dangerous to spend your whole life within such limiting constraints, because what will ultimately happen is that the mind will stagnate, lacking proper stimulation.)

so yes, people abhor uncertainty and any kind of middle ground, needing clean structures on which they can build their views and definitive opinions, because these things bring safety and stability and keep the mind anchored. just as we see with obi-wan. he is scared to steer in a different direction because then he doesn’t know who he is (like you said), he loses parts of himself. i’m just repeating myself.

but to return back to what i was getting at. i think that we, quite naturally, tend to (over)simplify things so that we are able to digest them—which is understandable and perfectly fine, as long as the resulting interpretation still challenges the norm in some way at least. otherwise, we’re left with a jumbled mess of confusing ideas that, on a fundamental level, inspire fear. human brains like patterns and familiarity, and if anything deviates from the norm, i can guarantee you that the response that follows will be emotional and hostile.

any kind of abstraction that challenges already-established thought processes feels intrusive, and what will ultimately happen is that people will act defensively in a very irrational way (complicated/unfamiliar = dangerous. it’s instinctual), or they will attack you because they feel like you are attacking their mental frameworks, or their opinions and, by extension, them as well (as if their personas were fused with what they believe in, indistinguishable from it. and they’re unable to separate one from the other without harming their psyche in some way).

because what you’re basically doing is taking away the very things that give their lives structure and coherence, that constitute their world. without this “coherence,” they feel lost in the big, scary world. but i don’t think real life can be like that—safe and organized, i mean. real life is chaotic, messy, and disorienting, it’s non-normative. and trying to rigidly force it into predefined structures can only result in pain and disappointment, which can lead to other, scarier things when we find out that the rigid structure is, in fact, dysfunctional and unsustainable… that is not to say we should lead our lives devoid of any kind of structure, but that it’s a very fine line to walk. additionally, this rigidity closes the door to real conversation, to philosophizing, to abstraction.

to expand on this idea, i often use the analogy of “castles built on sand.” quite simply: in order to make sense of things, we build foundations upon which we build layers of core beliefs and opinions. then we keep adding and adding until we’re left with a monstrous tower of accumulated beliefs that is extremely difficult to maintain and sustain, because it’s fragile. and then, when somebody pokes at one of those core beliefs, the whole castle starts to crumble, and the mind that built it shatters alongside it. because it has nothing to feed upon, nothing to grasp and hold onto.

i think that open-mindedness and the willingness to let your castles crumble if the need arises help us understand things on a more fundamental level (because we’re no longer bound by a set of toxic limitations), allowing us to adopt multiple perspectives without judgment and dive deeper to unearth every possible layer. because each time your castle crumbles, you are faced with the difficult task of rethinking the way you structure your world and improving upon it, building something better and then perhaps destroying it again, until you maybe realize there’s no real need for any castles at all, and that the individual grains of sand that make up the vast whole are quite enough, and perfectly sufficient in themselves. it may offer a kind of freedom.

such a person is then able to understand behavior more easily and objectively, accepting other people’s conduct without the burden of personal hurt (because the mind has learned how to self-reflect and distinguish between trauma-based emotional pain and actual objective judgment), considering multiple points of view and shifting perspectives without letting personal involvement distort their understanding. but that’s difficult, it has to be. or maybe it isn’t, who knows. but i’m straying…

(lmao i hope i don’t sound like a complete lunatic)

anyway, to circle back to what we were originally talking about.

you wrote: “Obi-Wan sees himself reflected in Anakin, finding him so similar yet so different that it makes him uncomfortable. Anakin breaks down many of his mental frameworks, forcing him to restructure them, and Obi-Wan doesn't want to lose those frameworks because they are what give him peace. If he loses them, there is no peace. If he doesn't follow the rules, there is no peace; if there is no peace, he is lost and reverts to being the troubled young man he once was.”

YES exactly, i think this lies at the core of things, and i can’t help but agree.

another thing about obi-wan, though, is that he might be marginally aware of some things. not fully conscious of them, per se, but perhaps about halfway there. because he does have that analytical potential to self-reflect, even if he doesn’t properly exercise it to a degree that would improve things in a noticeable way. but because he is aware of some things, be it about himself, his beliefs, or the general state of things that impact him to some extent (and that, of course, involves his relationships and the way he navigates them), he willingly chooses to close his eyes to them, knowing where that would lead. and where it leads is a dark place he doesn’t really want to visit. and it’s obvious why.

and with that, i’m ending this because it’s probably getting long and tedious, and i’m just blabbering anyway. there aren’t many people that enjoy talking about such things, and i hope i didn’t scare you off

onlygships

First of all, I want to say that this conversation doesn't overwhelm me at all; in fact, I'm really enjoying it. Even if you'd like to chat privately, my DMs are open whenever you want to discuss this or other topics.

I agree with what you're saying. The analogy between sandcastles and mental structures seems very apt to me, as does the explanation of why people have such a dichotomous way of thinking about characters. Personally, I hate "good" or "bad" classifications because I think they often ignore certain nuances or oversimplify things. I understand they're there to serve a purpose, but as you mentioned, I feel they cause many people to become so closed off to "black" or "white" that they forget there are shades of gray, and that, in fact, black and white coexist to create images and other elements that are commonplace (even if we don't like them).

Undoubtedly, people project their emotions or even their lives onto characters. I think this is partly what's sought after in the audience, and sharing past experiences or wounds with characters can make you see yourself reflected too much in them. I believe it's often used as a kind of personal shield (a way of protecting that wounded part from a third party; you become what you needed when you had that wound).

It's a very human process, and the dichotomy has a perfect scientific explanation, as do biases (that's why I laugh when many people claim that "this is the objective reading of character X," because in reality, they have a bias, and we all have biases that prevent us from being completely objective. These blind spots are difficult to see because they require reflection, and as you mention, they require uncertainty that you're not always willing to overcome. This reminds me a bit of Sartre talking about how people tend to seek comfort in concepts like destiny or God, because denying that we have choices is easier and more mentally comfortable. You don't face the pain and the unknown, which would often force you to rethink many aspects of your life and restructure them, and that brings more pain because you lose a part of yourself. These structures are part of you, of who you are… You create them, and they create you to the same degree, and letting go of that is also difficult, and I think that's why many people don't do it).

Focus on the grains It's very difficult, but I think it's something many people should dare to do. Venturing into the unknown of their own minds and trying to see what's happening there in order to restructure and make sense of it. I think understanding how we think also helps us be more open to how others think and understand their positions without sharing them, but also without judging them (I love the concept of coexistence, but I notice that in fandoms, coexistence or balance isn't usually a priority; I feel like it's a very "black and white" way of thinking).

That's a good point. Obi-Wan is a reflective and intelligent person. I think he perceives things, but he prefers not to touch them or delve too deeply into them, as you point out. He knows that could lead him to rethink too many things in his life, and I think that could generate fear and shock in him. So, he often prefers passive thinking or looking the other way rather than facing the truth, which he knows might hurt him in a way he might not even know how to repair.

Thanks for your reblogs; I enjoyed them very much. And if you want to reply here or privately, go ahead, feel free.

nqro

i figured it’d be easier to continue this through reblogs, so that it all stays in one post if we ever want to come back to it. i’m glad you’re enjoying this conversation; i am as well. and i really appreciate you telling me so openly.

so to get back to what we were talking about.

oh, yes, people do love to take comfort in concepts like destiny and god. this, i think, lies at the root of most of the issues we see. god is a broad concept, and we tend to deify lots of different things, be it people, ideas, beliefs, or anything that can be put into this small box of concepts that gives us direction and comfort. societies are built on worship, which is why i think it’s foolish when people say that we’re well past that. one look at the way people interact on social media will tell you that we’re not. and if there’s something that people truly love, it’s deifying.

fandoms are like that sometimes. we gravitate towards certain themes and characters because we see ourselves reflected in them, that’s true, just like people want to see themselves reflected in their “gods,” whatever they may be. we build ourselves around our favorite characters (you’re right, it’s definitely something the audience actively seeks out, 100%), and then when somebody tries to take that away from us, we feel threatened, as if they were stripping us of parts of ourselves, as i believe you implied.

i think much of it has to do with the way we’re brought up. most of us go through our lives still as children, never really growing up, because seeking guidance in something “bigger” and supposedly “wiser” than us is easier and more comfortable and takes away the burden of responsibility and uncertainty. there’s no one to tell us there are other ways to go about things, but there’s also the fact that accepting responsibility takes effort and a willingness to change and dive into the unknown. finding comfort in limiting concepts makes us feel less vulnerable and more in control, even if it’s probably the other way around. but i suppose it’s easy to fit things into small boxes that look nice and organized, especially when we don’t have to think about them afterwards because we settle for easy solutions.

but then, how can we possibly see all the shades of grey if we still expect “mom” or “dad” to tell us what’s right and what isn’t—to take the burden of responsibility off our shoulders? and then, what is god if not an extension of that? but then if it’s not god or destiny, it’s someone or something else, and oftentimes something even trickier to first recognize and then, second, get rid of, because the illusion is stronger and feeds on itself. it’s the belief that we somehow overcame this narrow-minded, outdated way of thinking and, as such, are free. and yes, we are, perhaps, for a short while. but then ego finds something else to feed on and shape itself around, something else to grow dependent on: a new set of beliefs that aren’t all that different from religion. and so we’re back to square one.

this is why people usually get stuck in black-and-white ways of thinking: it gives them clear direction without much effort and, like a parent, tells them what to do and what to avoid.

i really like what you said about objective reality and biases in relation to character analysis, i think it’s spot on.

onlygships

I think I like the direction it's taking and the approach it's taking, even though it might seem unrelated to fandoms. I think it makes a lot of sense to talk about God and destiny to connect it to fandoms and how people typically experience them.

You're absolutely right about God. God is a broad and very varied concept, and even the concept of destiny is very broad and changes its function greatly depending on the culture and the person. I think I was never so aware of this until I started reading some non-Catholic/non-Christian authors, and then I realized how different their explanations of destiny and God were from those of Christian and Catholic authors. But in the end, I think it's very human that, regardless of context, many people feel a need to have something greater to believe in and worship. As you mentioned, I think many of our interactions can be related to adoration (we adore ideas, people, situations; especially if many of these are distant from us because they never break the "black"-"white" fantasy we create in our minds, they never break the idealization, and we should never see them with nuances and shades of gray… I had a teacher who always told us that many people are more in love with the idea of a person or situation than with the person or situation itself, because the idea is full of adoration without responsibility; the fact forces you to observe the situation as it is… I don't know if that makes sense).

Yes, I think many people have a very personal process of identification with fandoms and characters (I've experienced it myself), but I think that this identification and emotional bonding often comes at the cost of becoming so deeply attached to an ideal that it's hard to let go of it, or you feel that a part of you is hurt if you're forced to let go or if it's questioned. It's as if they threaten the entire structure and you, even though the character isn't real. Many people defend them and experience them as if they were (I think that's why many people are sometimes sensitive to nuanced criticisms of certain characters).

Exactly! Freeing yourself from responsibility for your actions and the possibility of change by blaming a greater, wiser force is much easier than accepting responsibility and self-analysis. As you mention, having rigid and limiting concepts gives the feeling of "control" that people crave, and that's why they stay there, not because they want to be black or white, but because the unknown causes anxiety, and that anxiety isn't easy to overcome.

For me, it's practically impossible to think of a person without beliefs. Beliefs form a large part of who you are. Beliefs help explain how a person feels, acts, and lives; and they help you understand that what they do, feel, or think is, for them, the ideal and the right thing to do. So, as you say, people return to the same starting point… They abandon some beliefs but adopt others because uncertainty can be sustained for short periods, but over long periods, that uncertainty can become unbearable, and that's why the mind may try to return to the same point, albeit a different one.

Thanks, I really like the topic of biases; when I first studied it in my degree, I had a hard time understanding it; but when I entered the Star Wars fandom, I was finally able to grasp the concept, haha, because I've seen it in its most practical form and sometimes even very literal, which led me to understand how people carry biases into everyday life and even online and fandom discussions.

I personally believe that it's impossible for an objective reality about characters to exist (because of biases); even the author can have biases about their own characters.

nqro

yes, what you said about fantasies makes perfect sense to me, and i think that anakin and padmé’s relationship is a clear example of that. in fact, i read a really great meta post recently that goes into this in great depth, and i'll link it here if you’re interested.

another thing that somewhat relates to what we’re discussing here are concepts like heaven and hell, good and evil, although i suppose we implicitly talked about it in relation to the whole concept of black-and-white thinking. yes, it’s convenient to gloss over the complexity of reality when there’s a specific “god” of our choosing to take care of that for us. and because there’s some type of “god” overseeing things, there must also be boundaries within which he operates; hence, good and evil.

obviously, everyone wants to be perceived as good, just as everyone wants to go to “heaven,” proverbially speaking. nobody wants the label “bad” tattooed on their forehead, because that means ostracization and a kind of social death.

but because we want to be good for the same reasons we think “god” is (or should be) good, and because we want to be adored by this god in return (just like we want to be loved by our parents), we also want to think of ourselves as morally superior. and strictly adhering to what we believe and perceive as good can give us that. but it can also lead us into mental traps that are difficult to escape. i think “toxic positivity” and “moral absolutism” are good examples of that. ultimately, it’s still about control and repression, and by extension egotism. or envy. we envy whatever it is we’ve placed in the position of “god” because it usually has everything we want, because it’s perfect, and we want that for ourselves (so greed as well). what that creates is tension: we love the concept of “god,” but we also resent it because of that envy. there’s also fear, which prevents us from going into full-on rebellion mode. (i think we can find a comparable tension at the core of anakin and obi-wan’s relationship: desire, envy, resentment, repression, rebuke, hate to some extent, but also adoration, devotion, and love—on both sides, because obi-wan is no stranger to darker, baser emotions, contrary to popular belief. he’s just mastered the art of subtlety, and mastered it to perfection. well, almost.)

anyway, i think that a lot of the time we’re encouraged to believe that opinions and concepts are absolute (because “god” is absolute): if that thing right there isn’t good, it must be inherently evil, right? and so, trapped by our false perception of what we think reality is (or what it should be), we cease to see how ideologically entrenched we’ve become in the process; how vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation that makes us (it doesn’t matter by whom or what).

sometimes, when people ask for my opinion on some trivial matter, they get almost offended when i tell them that, “i don’t know, don’t really have one, both options look viable to me from a certain perspective.” because they need you to pander to their belief in absolutes (or downright convert you) and are instantly confused when you don’t, treating you like a glitch in the system. because you are. “but you have to have an opinion.” “you need to have this very specific opinion.” “you can have only one opinion on this matter, no more.” newsflash: you don’t.

yes, i totally get what you’re saying! i think observation is the best tool for learning, along with occasional participation. sometimes you need to actually see things play out in front of you to really understand the theory behind them.

as for the question of absolute objective reality, i think it’s a tricky one. and there’s a good reason for that. there’s no real way of telling what is absolutely objective and what isn’t, since there’s no objective point of reference from which to measure it. i suppose objective reality does exist in some form, somewhere outside of us, in the abstract, perhaps. but it’s probably not what we think it is. i must agree with you that it’s nearly impossible to achieve absolute objectivity in any real sense of the word, but i also think that we can get very close to it, and should get as close to it as possible. although i think there are situations where a purely subjective perspective can be just as valuable, if not more so

boringkate

You wanna log in? What's your username? No. What's your email address? What's your password? What code did we just send to your email address? Now what code did we just text to you? New IP address detected. We sent you an email. Click the link to confirm the new address. Scan your fingerprint. Turn on your camera for age verification. Sign the updated user agreement. Accept all cookies? That feature isn't available on the website. Download the app. Those features are in the app. The app that's really a web browser.