So, Who LOST The Philosophical Debate - Locke or Jack?

[D-Roc]

Jack and Locke ended the season, just as they had started it. A quite cove in the Orchid was the setting for their final philosophical debate - Jack opposing the need to believe, rejecting faith, the island and anything 'miraculous'..and Locke opposing the desire to let go, embracing faith, the island and anything 'miraculous'.

These two men gently exchanged opposing views in the Orchid..a striking contrast to the hostility that unfolded at the cockpit in 4.01, as Jack cocked and clicked the gun at Locke's exposed cranium.

Faith and science colliding..a string-theory of season 4. All things were possible, yet the pair became disconnected as they were unable to reach a mutual resolution. Locke gently whispering in Jack's ear.."Lie to them, Jack".

And so he did..the first signs of Jack accepting that he was wrong..knowing that deep down, whatever his issues with Locke, he was wrong. And so he lied..the philosophical battle lost.

..But perhaps not - flash-forward 3 years and who would be in the coffin, but one John Locke. The island's "chosen one", the man of faith, the man who put his faith in the island was now dead. Victory to Jack?

Yet Jack took no glee from this turn of events, perhaps realising that his faith actually rested in Locke..just as Locke's destiny rested in Jack? Both men now broken. Both men winners and losers of the philosophical battle?

science faith science faith science faith

Where one begins..the other ends. Where the other ends..one begins.

Who, in your opinion is winning the philosophical battle of science and faith - is it Jack or Locke? ..and why?

[KatesFate]

You pose a tough query. At this point in the game with the information we have on hand, I dont think either of them is winning the debate. Locke is currently (well sort of) in a coffin and Jack is drug addict. Although Locke may know more, neither of them reallly know squat about the island right now. Only time will tell who the winner of this debate will be.

[Miss Austen]

I don't think either of them are winners.

I think the winner to this debate is somewhere between Jack and Locke.

Locke believes everything too readily. Remember Eko saying to Locke: "Don't mistake coincidence for fate." Jack is into denial too much.

However I think Jack just wanted to get back to normality. I don't think he ever really wanted to be the leader but the challenge was there and he accepted it. He wasn't interested in the island's mysteries. His main focus was to get everyone off the island. He was partially successful in that but not everyone wanted to leave the island anyway.

Jack probably wanted to get back to spinal surgery which he found easier to cope with. When you're a surgeon you pretty much make all the decisions and the patient can't really go against you. On the island, Jack's decisions were questioned. Locke encouraged Jack to be the leader but challenged and questioned Jack's leadership. Pretty much like Alpert encouraged Locke but then questioned HIS decisions (remember the knife). Was Alpert trying to disuade Locke from the knife because he knifed Naomi?

Jack is now a drink and drug addict and Locke is dead. Perhaps one had too much faith and the other not enough? One had too much logic and the other not enough. The middle ground is probably the best choice.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by KatesFate

You pose a tough query. At this point in the game with the information we have on hand, I dont think either of them is winning the debate. Locke is currently (well sort of) in a coffin and Jack is drug addict. Although Locke may know more, neither of them reallly know squat about the island right now. Only time will tell who the winner of this debate will be.

Yeah, the journey definitely isn't over for these two. It will be interesting to find out exactly what Locke (or Bentham) has learnt over the 2 or so years that have elapsed since Jack's departure from the island.

Originally Posted by Miss Austen

I don't think either of them are winners.

I think the winner to this debate is somewhere between Jack and Locke.

Locke believes everything too readily. Remember Eko saying to Locke: "Don't mistake coincidence for fate." Jack is into denial too much.

Interesting. It does make one wonder how intregral Mr. Eko was to the story and indeed, the island. I get the impression that he was a VERY important character, and aside from killing him off due to Adewale's dislike of Hawaii, it pose the question of whether his acceptance of his life (fate) was the thing that undid him in the eyes of the island. Where as Locke refuses to accept his fate if it's not inkeeping with his idea of destiny, he pushes and pushes and has shows deep regret over his past actions (for example, he really did some soul searching over Boone's "Sacrifice"), Eko was more: "what is done, is done", sort of thing.

However I think Jack just wanted to get back to normality. I don't think he ever really wanted to be the leader but the challenge was there and he accepted it. He wasn't interested in the island's mysteries. His main focus was to get everyone off the island. He was partially successful in that but not everyone wanted to leave the island anyway.

Yes, that's interesting. Jack came into this thing very closed to mystism and 'magic' (if you will), yet Locke came into it absolutely seeking it. Yet both men appear to be as important to the island as the other. Why then, in a bid to open Jack's mind to what was to come..why was Jack not 'tapped up' in the same way that Locke was? Or was he and we just don't know about it? I guess it could be argued that Desmond meeting him in the football stadium was the equivalent of Alpert of Matthew Abbadon paying Locke a visit at crucial points in his life...

Jack probably wanted to get back to spinal surgery which he found easier to cope with. When you're a surgeon you pretty much make all the decisions and the patient can't really go against you. On the island, Jack's decisions were questioned. Locke encouraged Jack to be the leader but challenged and questioned Jack's leadership. Pretty much like Alpert encouraged Locke but then questioned HIS decisions (remember the knife). Was Alpert trying to disuade Locke from the knife because he knifed Naomi?

Whilst I see no reason why Alpert would want to disuade Locke from using the knife on Naomi (Naomi was a threat to the island and Alpert apparent loves the island..he also killed Keamy, and so probably would have done the same to Naomi), it is possible Alpert wants to strengthen Locke. Wasn't it Locke who once said:

"Struggle is natures way of strengthening"

That's not to say that Alpert wasn't genuinely upset over young Locke's decision to choose the knife, but it does highllight the idea that Alpert is the cocoon to Locke's Moth.

I also find it interesting as to why Alpert doesn't or can't do the job himself if he was so disatisfied with Ben's reign? I guess this again highlights the significance of 'destiny' and 'order' in the Lost mythos. Alpert seems to know his role and accepts it, although he can still 'influence' events. Much like my favourite anology:

"You cannot change fate, but in-between the stepping stones of what has to be, one can exert freewill in those moments..even though in the end, the outcome will be the same"

Jack is now a drink and drug addict and Locke is dead. Perhaps one had too much faith and the other not enough? One had too much logic and the other not enough. The middle ground is probably the best choice.

Good suggestion. It would seem that in an ideal world, they would merge and become one man - faith and science in balance.

[Gale243]

Locke, no questons asked... OH shoot!! I didn't see Ben on there, I would've picked him... (I think)

[monster-eats-pilot]

I apologise if none of this makes sense, I'm half asleep and just allowing my brain to think freely

Sneaky adding Ben into the poll Roco

Neither and neither can ever win (or both depending on how you look at it but I'm going for neither). You need science to have faith and you need faith to have science. (I'm speaking in general here). One cannot exist without the other. Like you said Roco both do appear to be as important as each other because they need each other to be who they are and believe in what they believe (being science or faith). Of course one could come acorss stronger than the other but with Locke and Jack (and Lost in general) when you decide on one thing something happens to make you think again and although it's you who decides on which one you think is stronger, science and faith will always be equal no matter what order it goes in or how and by who is it portrayed.

"Science only goes so far then comes faith"

[Magnovey Phoenix]

I really hate Jack and he is so anoying and frustrating, he's ruining the show. He is so stubborn, superficial and led by some stereotypes. He is bad as a leader, and from what they are giving us not every cooperative. The fact is that he is not a very stable person which can be seen from the flash backs on his life before Island. He really needs a good therapist to help him pass through this aggression he has (and the best scene that shows us that is when he holds gun on running Desmond, who escaped the hatch in the beginning of the 2nd season).
It's only my opinion cos I'm a man of faith and I go with the Locke. With Jack we get escape from Island but with Locke we get THEE Island! Locke is clear minded and very open for everything new, unlike Jack who is bonded to traditon and stereotypic opinions. You can see that in every conflict Jack and Locke had and for me, the most frustrating was when they discovered the button and Jack creating his own army.
Kate would be a great partner to Locke if only she didn't envolved her emotions towards Jack.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by monster-eats-pilot

I apologise if none of this makes sense, I'm half asleep and just allowing my brain to think freely

Sneaky adding Ben into the poll Roco

Neither and neither can ever win (or both depending on how you look at it but I'm going for neither). You need science to have faith and you need faith to have science. (I'm speaking in general here). One cannot exist without the other. Like you said Roco both do appear to be as important as each other because they need each other to be who they are and believe in what they believe (being science or faith). Of course one could come acorss stronger than the other but with Locke and Jack (and Lost in general) when you decide on one thing something happens to make you think again and although it's you who decides on which one you think is stronger, science and faith will always be equal no matter what order it goes in or how and by who is it portrayed.

Yes, you need that duality don't you.

"Science only goes so far then comes faith"

Indeed, I recall this being in someone's sig not so long ago

Originally Posted by Magnovey Phoenix

I really hate Jack and he is so anoying and frustrating, he's ruining the show. He is so stubborn, superficial and led by some stereotypes. He is bad as a leader, and from what they are giving us not every cooperative. The fact is that he is not a very stable person which can be seen from the flash backs on his life before Island. He really needs a good therapist to help him pass through this aggression he has (and the best scene that shows us that is when he holds gun on running Desmond, who escaped the hatch in the beginning of the 2nd season).
It's only my opinion cos I'm a man of faith and I go with the Locke. With Jack we get escape from Island but with Locke we get THEE Island! Locke is clear minded and very open for everything new, unlike Jack who is bonded to traditon and stereotypic opinions. You can see that in every conflict Jack and Locke had and for me, the most frustrating was when they discovered the button and Jack creating his own army.
Kate would be a great partner to Locke if only she didn't envolved her emotions towards Jack.

Interesting. Whilst I wouldn't say that Jack is ruining the show - I believe that Jack is the show (pretty much..along with a couple of other individuals), I do agree that he is extremely stubborn and proud. Will this ultimately be his downfall, or in a twist of fate, will this be his saving grace? I guess if Jack is truely 'defined' and destined as Achera once told him, then one would have to consider that his current 'make-up' (traits) were given to him for a reason (although this could also lead into a worthwhile nature vs nurture debate). Maybe everything in Jack's life has gone the way that it was "supposed" to go. For Jack, who doesn't believe in fate of faith, this would be rather ironic.. ..although I would expect freewill to come into play, as without that this show has no high stakes. Without freewill there is nothing to fight for. I guess this is what we are all waiting to discover - is LOST about predeterminism, or freewill? Has Jack's actions changed the 'order of things', or has he simply done what he was always going to do..or perhaps there is no order, no reason, no rhyme? Maybe there are only overlapping spirals and the characters can unknowingly only make the best of the time they are in. Maybe this time..is the last time. Hence why it is so important to get it right..whatever 'it' might be.

Interesting perspective on Kate - I recall her going back to help Locke in S2, effectively going against Jack and joining Locke's crusade for discovery. Whether this was just a logisitcal plot point to get Jack in the hatch (as he came back for Kate) or not is a mystery, but it would indeed be interesting to see more of Kate and Locke together. I often feel that Kate is neither faither nor science..which would make her..outside of the loop. So why is she still so darn important to the story, one wonders..

[freckles08]

Jack lost coz if was never meant to be on the island how come now all those bad things have happened though he's much better off then Locke who is dead.

[monster-eats-pilot]

Originally Posted by Roco

Yes, you need that duality don't you.

Indeed

I recall this being in someone's sig not so long ago

Gulity

[KatesFate]

I often feel that Kate is neither faither nor science..which would make her..outside of the loop. So why is she still so darn important to the story, one wonders..

This is interesting. I never thought about it before and I dont know why, but when it comes to Kate the writers seem to keep the science/faith debate fairly grey. I think I myself see her as somewhere inbetween, an equal combination of the two. Maybe in the end it all comes down to choosing one or the other for her to accept going back to the island.