This weeks guest instructor is : Alcander Caedmon
The Force, the Dark Side and Human Nature
In my time at the Academy, I have noticed a great deal of discussion involving the Dark Side of the Force, one part of the great dichotomy that divides the Lucasian-inspired notion of some overarching, pervasive, controllable medium known as "the Force." Theories have been posited and dismissed. Hypotheses have been offered and disproved. In all, there is no one conceptualization of the "Dark Side" that is acceptable to more than any two people at a time. This makes the subject quite troublesome to discuss. For many, beliefs are a very personal thing, and, in the best tradition of human understanding, these proponents lash out at any that challeng e said beliefs.
There’s an old tongue-in-cheek joke that Jewish people tell each other, giving a humorous maxim of "two Jews, three opinions." Perhaps this applies to self-professed Jedi as well. As a group, we seem to be more introspective and intellectual than the average person is; it would make sense that many differing opinions would be produced on a single issue. And with an issue as divisive and intricate as the Dark Side of the Force, a tangled skein of thoughts and opinions is to be expected. In fact, many people deny the fact that the dichotomy between the Dark and Light sides even exists in reality. These pundits instead look to human nature, seeing that our perception of reality is only that: perception. Human perception of reality does not actually alter the physical universe, yet to us the universe does seem to be altered in some way. Thus, the dichotomy really exists in human nature, and that man just projects this dichotic relationship onto the universe around them.
However, is this artificial dichotomy really due to human nature? Is human nature divided into dark and light sides? What this all boils down to is a very basic question: what is human nature?
This is a question that philosophers, theologians, religious figures, and even the so-called common man have been asking since before the beginning of human history. What is man’s inherent nature? Is he inherently good or evil? Is man inclined to do good acts, or evil acts? There have, historically, been two basic views on this subject: optimism and pessimism.
Optimism claims that man is inherently good natured, that he is inclined to doing good acts. Man is inclined to selflessness, consideration, gratitude, preservation, tranquility, moderation, temperance, and tolerance. Not only that, but man is a perfectible being. Through education and effort, man can improve himself, eventually becoming as perfect as a non-divine being can be. Perhaps the optimist viewpoint can be best expressed by the Marquis de Condorcet in his treatise The Progress of the Human Mind. Writing at the tail end of the Western European Enlightenment, Condorcet prophesied that
"The time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free men who know no other master but their own reason; when tyrants and slaves, priests and their stupid or hypocritical instruments will exist only in works of history and on the stage; and when we shall think of them only to pity their victims and their dupes"
Now, while it is rare to see such unbridled optimism in other philosophers, Condorcet’s feelings on the quasi-divine nature of humanity were shared by many of his contemporaries. Man has the most unique of all gifts in the universe, that of reason. By the virtue of this godlike rational ability, man can rise above the morass of the natural world. He can conquer his instincts, and thus nature itself.
Pessimism, on the other hand, claims that man is inherently bad natured, that he is inclined to doing evil acts. Man is inclined to selfishness, callousness, ingratitude, destruction, violence, extremism, intemperance, and intolerance. As Niccolo Machiavelli put it in The Prince, "For one can say this generally of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, eager for gain." To top it all off, man, who is obviously imperfect, is a hopeless case. He cannot improve himself in any noticeable fashion. He is bound to remain in his putrescent state for all existence. Perhaps Voltaire expressed it best in Candide, when he said:
"Do you think," Candide asked, "that men have always massacred each other as they do today, and that they have always been liars, cheaters, traitors, ingrates, brigands, weaklings, deserters, cowards, enviers, gluttons, drunks, misers, profiteers, predators, slanderers, perverts, fanatics, hypocrites, and morons?"
"Do you think," Martin said, "that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they found any?"
"Yes, of course," said Candide.
"Well," said Martin, "if hawks have always had the same character, why do you expect that men have changed theirs?"
For a book and a writer that were considered radical at the time, Voltaire’s Candide expressed a millennia-old view of human nature. This pessimistic viewpoint stretches back centuries. Saint Augustine of Hippo, a fourth century Catholic theologian, stated that man was sinful by nature, and that only the grace of God could save him. But it goes back even further than that. Aristotle and Plato the most famous of the ancient Greek philosophers, had a largely pessimistic view of human nature. They both agreed that man, left to his own devices, would be incapable of a good life. A state was needed to protect mankind from itself as much as from the perils of the natural world.
Pessimism has had a long and storied past. Thomas Hobbes, in his treatise called Leviathan, created a whole political philosophy around the proposition that man is inherently evil. In his hypothetical state of nature, where man’s inherent inclinations are allowed to reign free of societal intervention, there exists a war of all against all. In this horrible state of existence, there is "no place for industry… no culture of the earth; no navigation… no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing of such things as require much force… and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death." In short, the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes’ foremost opponent, John Locke, had an equally dim view of the state of nature and human proclivities. Their differences of opinion derived from the proper way, through a particular form of government, to alleviate the horrors of the state of nature and launch mankind into civil society.
However, there is a caveat to each of these theories that is quite intriguing. Almost none of the famous pessimists, save for perhaps Augustine and Voltaire, could be considered straight-arrow pessimists. Machiavelli thought that mankind could improve itself by forming republics. Hobbes and Locke thought that the state of nature was horrifying, not man’s nature itself. And they both offered theories on how many could improve it’s lot through the restructuring of society. Aristotle and Plato both thought that because of man’s immoral proclivities, it was natural for him to exist in a civil society so as to curb those inclinations. And even the dour Augustine saw salvation and improvement through divine intervention and religion.
Human nature has been the subject of many debates of the millennia. Each person has, or should have, his or her own opinion on the matter. It is quite rare to see pure optimists and pure pessimists; mankind so rarely sees things in such arbitrary terms. The truth, perhaps, lies somewhere in the middle.
But how about that dichotomy? Does it truly exist in human nature, or is it artificially created by the human intellect? John Locke seems to think it did. He points to two forces acting on human consciousness: reason and passions. The passions are our instincts, feelings, and drives. Man’s reason is his pure intellect. A truly enlightened and educated being, in Locke’s opinion, is one whose reason has mastered his passions. Nonetheless, Locke seems to feel that human nature is divided into two opposing concepts. In the twentieth century, Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, posited a dichotomy along those same lines. In his book Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud developed his theory of consciousness. Man’s consciousness Freud labels the "ego", which is constantly struggling to balance two opposing forces: the "id", which houses man’s instincts and animal urges, and the "superego", which houses man’s socially-derived moral imperatives. Even Augustine held that man struggled between the morals established by God and its own sinful nature.
So, does a dichotomy exist in human nature between morality and instincts? Many theorists over the millennia have thought so. Are they correct in their assumptions? That is a matter of personal opinion. However, for the time being, let us assume that such a dichotomy does exist. What does this mean for the artificial dichotomy that man projects on the universe, and thus, the Force? Is the much talked-about "Dark Side" really those passions, those instincts, feelings and animal urges that exist inside all of us? Perhaps it is. Perhaps the dark side of human nature really is Freud’s "id" or Locke’s "passions" or Augustine’s "sinful nature". But then, if that is the true nature of the Dark Side, would not it exist in each and every one of us, being an integral part of our very natures?
Indeed it would. The Dark Side is in all of us. It is a part of us, and cannot be ignored, any more than our left hand can be ignored. There is a dark side to our nature, but it cannot be shunted aside. Freud, though a delusional, over-sexed opium addict, was not a total crackpot. It is a struggle, as Augustine and Locke affirmed; a struggle between socially-derived morals and our own baser instincts. But, as Freud reminds us, those are both integral parts of our minds, and we cannot dispense of either of them.
If you wish to know the Dark Side of the Force, you need only look as far as your own mind. It is a part of you, as much as your spleen, cerebellum or memories. The Dark Side is part of human nature, and perhaps always will be.
-Alcander Caedmon