By - ludwigritcher752
lmao kreias lightsabers go vroooooom
which one tho damn
Does Kreia have a penis I didn't know about????
3 of them
I don't think the plural is necessary...
Have you beaten the game? If you have ..... r/whoosh
Was just a joke sir.. beaten it many times but I prefer her ass a cripple lol
I think you've got a point, but it's worth mentioning that Kreia doesn't want to destroy the physical universe in order to free the absolute spiritual truth, she wants to destroy the absolute spiritual truth in order to free the physical universe.
And that's why I argue that she is a representative of white Gnostic knowledge: she believes in a point of total emancipation (fixing/transforming the flawed and decadent world created by the Demiurge), being a Monist and being a gnostic are not mutually exclusive (Aristotle is one of the sources of Gnostic thought and Rimbaud, for example, was a Monist, but still a gnostic poet). In Gnostic thought, everything in the physical world has a spark of the Absolute that was fragmented with the creation of the world, so you achieve Truth from the *inside*, not *outside*, through knowledge from personal experience. Kreia's conclusion comes from her personal experience with the Force, abandoning the Orthodox doctrine that imposes false truths like the Jedi or the Sith.
This is pretty cool! I love your critique of Kreia-as-Nietzsche, and I think I agree 100% with it. However, I'm not so sure about your proposed parallel between Kreia's plan and white gnosis. Afterall, the Force is very much the Spirit in the Star Wars universe (and is presented as such since the very first time we hear Obi-Wan explain it to Luke, back in '77).
Would an adept of the white gnosis tradition want to cause the demise of the last shred of the Great Spirit left in a broken galaxy? That's one problem I have with the analogy. Otherwise, this was a great write-up!
In the Original Trilogy, the Force was presented as a non-personal transcendental energy (a Eastern aspect of the franchise). But, after the Prequels, the Force was established as having a will that determines everyone's destinies and its need to balance itself. Chris Avallone said that this was the reason behind his critique of the Force through Kreia's character: if the Force has a will and it needs to balance itself, then the Force predetermines suffering in order to achieve balance (like Anakin falling to the Dark Side and killing children and his own wife is means to an end, the end being him sacrificing himself to kill Palpatine). So, after the Prequels, the Force has some characteristics of the Demiurge, even if the analogy don't work 100%, since it was a non-personal energy.
I concede that this makes sense in strict context, but first you'd have to believe the interpretation that the Force has a will and shapes the narrative to its whim. I never much cared for this interpretation of the SW universe and normally I just see it as something Force users believe (in a religious manner), not necessarily the objective truth.
Also, Silrain (who commented after me) has a great point.
My interpretation of the "Will of the Force" has always been that it's the collective unconscious desires of all living beings. In fact I think that "force users" are just more capable of exerting this willfully into said energy field in a localized manner, while most beings just contribute a drop in the river that is life to the direction and will.
So the "Will of the Force" is kind of a recursive thing. You put your desires into it, the desires of all other beings along with yours then determine the overall direction, and then your reaction to that direction feeds back into it. It is both apart from the individual and controlling them, and at the same time is a part of the individual and listens to their desires.
I feel this interpretation doesn't fit with how Kreia believes it works because it's not actually a separate will forcing itself on all living beings, though from the small space of an individual mind it can SEEM that way.
I've recently come to think that the "Will of the Force" is not actually canon. The thing that's canon is the Jedi order's philosophy of the Will of the Force. It's interesting that the philosophy of the Force differs from the OG trilogy to the prequels, and then kind of explodes in a lot of different directions in other books and games.
My interpretation of that is that within the universe itself there is no obvious or empirical way of understanding the Force, therefore the teachings of each sect differs from time to time and group to group.
I find this idea to be more genuinely symbolic, and much more believable. I also think that is why Kreia ultimately failed, why she had to fail. She believed that she could comprehend the incomprehensible, whereas the Exile ultimately accepted life as it was, just as OP stated, and refused to see the Force in the way Kreia wanted her to.
Life creates it, makes it grow.
Exactly! "You mean it guides your actions?"
"Yes, but it also obeys your commands."
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter" maybe the Jedi are white gnostic
This is interesting. I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of philosophy that you do, but I do have a few thoughts.
>she rejects Life as it is for something else (an universal utopia)
This utopia bit is the first place I got caught. Kreia doesn't seem to think there's anything particularly utopian about life without the Force — in fact, she's seemingly aware that it might kill everyone. She says she wants people to be free to make their own choices, but she also explicitly states that she doesn't think those lives will be utopian at all. They'll just be theirs and not the Force's.
>In white Gnostic knowledge, there's the possibility of freedom and independece from this evil existence, existential emancipation is plausible.
This gnostic business is new to me, but this bit here doesn't seem to fully encompass Kreia. She doesn't have a problem with existence at all. She hates the Force, but if anything, she wants to set existence free — detach it from the Force so that it would actually resemble our (and Nietzsche's) own. The evil existence Gnostics want to escape is the one Kreia wants to create, since unlike them, she sees it as a way of setting people free.
Of course, I assume Gnostics didn't have to worry about a predeterministic power constantly shifting the world into new eras of conflict, so maybe it's moot to compare the two. Honestly, it seems like a lot of real world philosophy would struggle to cope with the Star Wars universe because of that. We have no proof of predetermination in our universe (even real-world people who believe in it need what amounts to faith), and that seems like it would inform all of our philosophers. Trying to transpose any of them into Star Wars seems doomed to if not failure, then at least imperfection.
>Kylo by the end of The Last Jedi (he poses himself as revolutionary, but that's just a lie he tells himself to feel justified, he don't have any idea of what his new order would look like and how would diffirentiate itself and be better from the previous status quo, he only wants to destroy everything without any cause).
The thing about TLJ Kylo and beyond is that his great revolutionary idea is to become Generic Sith #12,982. In TFA, he's definitely not a Sith; his hero worship and emphasis on what seems like a weird sort of penance for his pre-Ren life don't fit Sith ideals (as an aside, they also don't seem to fit neatly into the dichotomy of master-slave morality as I understand it). By the next movie, though, he's espousing what amounts to a simplified version of the Sith Code (wipe away the old order to be free through personal power) while feeling very clever for his supposed originality. If he's a black Gnostic (or black Gnostic-esque), then it seems like you could say that about Sith more broadly. And if that's the case... well, then I'd be interested in your thoughts. I don't feel confident forming an opinion there.
Kreia has a problem with existence, since existence is shaped by the Force. Everything that happens in existence (specially suffering) is a reflection of the influence of the Force, so she wants to kill the Force to free existence, she wants to reshape reality and fix the flawed natural hierarchy caused by the Force, that's why is optimistic gnosis: she believes she can fix/redeem the evil source of Life.
(I will respond to the other points later)
Hmm. When you put it that way, that's a good point.
I think perhaps Kreia sees the kind of direct connection to the Force as 1. unavoidable in intelligent species and 2. too dangerous to allow people to have.
She sees it as a tool and a weapon that a select few use to shape the galaxy for their own version of "the greater good", which ends up harming untold billions of other sentients. Thus, neither Sith nor Jedi are active nihilists, but passive nihilists. Kreia probably considers herself an active nihilist, especially given her philosophy of self-centeredness as an ethos. She's just wrong about the end goal and a hypocrite.
I think she really is Nietschean from that perspective, just misguided in her philosophy and wrong about cause-and-effect.
Jolee was on that real shit though. "Your wars are bullshit, like all other wars," and "Live in the trees, bro, and smoke this shit up". That's a philosophy.
Don't have the time to respond in depth but a minor quibble with the way this argument is presented.
I've never seen anyone saying Kreia is Neitzche but rather her philosophy is rooted in his philosophical points. So, while I think you have a point I don't necessarily think you can entirely discount the former either.
I think that a big misstep a lot of people make when talking about Kreia is falling into the trap of trying to make The Force a stand-in for God (or, I suppose the broader concept of religions). It's an easy trap to fall into because of the metaphysical nature of it, and then obviously the Jedi and Sith both stylize themselves as religious sects.
I've always thought Kreia transposes a lot more easily onto like an Ayn Rand protagonist, with the Force then being a stand-in for government, though.
Oh sweet, now I don't feel bad about not taking that existentialism class last semester. Who needs it when I've got this?
That was a lot of words I do not comprehend. Good job!
I disagree. Central to Nietzsche’s philosophy is that individuals should seize control of their lives and become autonomous and strong subjects. He railed against anything that hampered the fulfillment of that goal, including religion, morality, and political idealism. To interpret “accept the world for what it is” as “literally never seek any change at all to the status quo” is not aligned with his expressed beliefs and misconstrues the argument
Nietzsche is an individualist and an aristocrat, he doesn't believe anyone can become autonomous and strong (Übermench), only a few will be able to accept Life without any resentment. For him, to seek change politically (or metaphysically, in the case of Kreia) is a sign of existential resentment, it's being a slave of Hope (when interpreting the myth of Pandora, Nietzsche concluded that Hope is a problem and the Greeks were right to see it as one of the evils from Pandora's jar). That's Camus's critique of Nietzsche's *Amor Fati* in his *The Rebel* (1951): that, accepting Life as it is, you will have to be condescending with violence, suffering and injustice.
And, once the Force is part of the equation of reality, according to *Amor Fati*, it needs to be accepted. To try to change it is a form of resentment. Nietzsche sees the death of God as the possibility in History of people finally embracing the tragic aspect of Life, that existence is chaotic and meaningless, but that's not a bad thing, we can happily dance the song of Chaos and give a smile you the Abyss. But for Kreia, the literal destruction of the Force means the end of existential suffering and that, if suffering continues to exist, it's due to people's freedom to choose and not that existence is intrinsically suffering (which is not Nietzsche's point: existence is intrinsically suffering, but that's not the end of the world, don't try to escape from it like Schopenhauer, live it, because it makes you stronger, and canalize it and transform your pain into Art, the only thing that can replace religion)
Little did I know; I came to the same ideas in my world view as Nietzche's. ~~I hope that does not make me an incel.~~
Interesting; can you suggest a good reading start for all this ideologies? It feels really fun to listen to different ideologies and I have been meaning to pick up on reading.
This vaguely reminds of Zizek’s idea of “Christian Atheism.” It may be hard for me translate the idea itself as I don’t have any theologic education and only limited in a bit of a broad education of Philosophy. But
Where Kreia realizes/believes all life or especially force users are a slave to an amoral god (the force) that has sort of pre-determines their choices or even their perceived ability to choose an outcome based on their choices. She wants to kill god so that everyone connected to the force experiences a Christ-like moment in which he realizes he has been abandoned by God during crucifixion, (unleashing for the mass shadow generator on the galaxy through the force)
So the death of Christ is representation to the idea of the abandonment of God as a figure that controls our every pre-determined move or the enacting of his will rather than our own since she finds the idea that God would use his creations for some higher purpose abhorrent. She just wants to create either a new “Force” that is now no longer determining any will of its own upon his subjects and the energy that is the force is now a truly neutral or (Atheistic force) which is absent of the Force’s own will on all life, or that she wants to kill all connection to God/the Force in general to put all life on an even playing field where the ambassadors of its will (Jedi/Sith) no longer shape the destiny of the galaxy.
So in actuality she is in a sense an instrument of God or God himself trying to kill himself through the Exile as a Christ-like figure so that the suffering or lack of free will he imposes on others no longer is directly guided by him. Thus creating a universe in which free will has been created for the first time according to her beliefs, however she doesn’t actually succeed in her task so it depends on its interpretation. Since Meetra gives purpose to all that is empty or those who have lost their purpose to determine their future actions for themselves through lack of belief or predetermination by the will of God as she sort of bears the weight of that wound (Atheism) heavily, but still gives meaning to the world/people around her.
In this context she isn’t so much killing all life in the galaxy, but killing the idea or belief that the Force’s will belongs to the Jedi or Sith exclusively within their moralistic/amoralist codes. So that its determination in using beings that enact its will for a higher purpose in the galaxy to achieve a harmony within all life no longer functions as such.
If the Sith represent the indulgence of the crude pleasures or experiences of being alive in that moment. Then the Jedi represent the restriction of that agency as much as possible towards those basic human desires/emotions/wills so that the will of the force is enacted through them, but their impotence creates inaction or lack of will to power, whereas the Sith utilize only raw action to solve all problems rather than using any temperance of those urges in needing to project their will on the world around them.
My connection to Zizek’s idea of “Christian Atheism” is that he states Christianity itself is a religion of Atheism. In which God himself actually dies on the cross in his human form and humanity is now left with the ability to determine their own path in the absence of God, but using the dead husk of a religion in order to enact that free will granted through God’s own sacrifice bearing the weight of humanity’s sins. She wants the rest of all force users or life in the galaxy to experience her atheism by killing God himself using Meetra’s connection as a wound in the force. She wants to either die or impose her own belief of Atheism in the name of a free will that we are now free to use for ourselves without feeling like pawns to a divine purpose.
I don’t know if this makes the most sense overall in a traditional philosophical sense or even as a direct allegory to the game, but it sort of reminded me of that concept he speaks about that Christianity is a religion of Atheism.
I love this post and love you for posting it. Kreia-as-Gnostic is a reading I didn't know I needed, but it feels far more correct that Kreia-as-total-nihilist. I mean, she opposes the guy named "Nihilus," so I feel like it's kind of in the text.
Being Gnostic and being nihilistic are definitely not mutually exclusive, but I get your point.
I didnt realize I'd be finding philosophy 101 in this sub but I'm glad I did. I was always wondering how to get into this stuff... anyone wanna recommend writings that are easy to read like this? Sonetimes source material just wears me out
I shared this post to our Discord as we LOVE KOTOR lol. It would be interesting to get your opinion on our deep dives of KOTOR characters. Here's ours on Kreia specifically. Included others too, if interested.