Plato and Robert Scott and the plot of Star Wars

            I was really interested in the way that Robert Scott defines truth: “Man must consider truth not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (17). This seems to challenge how we’ve been viewing truth through Plato. He tells us, through the guise of Socrates, that there is an ultimate truth that we have to reach and only philosophers can get us to that truth. Now we have Scott telling us that truth can change during any given moment. This new definition of truth reminded me of Star Wars.

            In the original Star Wars trilogy (New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi) Luke Skywalker is taught to believe that Darth Vader is evil. Over the course of the films, Vader upholds this idea of evil, even after we find out that he is Luke’s father. Even though Luke attempts to try and free the good inside his father, he still understands that Vader is evil. By the end of the series (spoiler alert if you haven’t seen them by now) Vader sacrifices himself to save Luke, and father and son are reunited for a brief moment before Vader dies. Does all of that change the fact that he was evil for the entire series? No, but his goodness is the new truth. His moment of selflessness suddenly changed him from a villain into a more sympathetic character (just don’t watch the new Star Wars movies so you can keep thinking that), so the truth surrounding his character has changed. It doesn’t mean that the old view of him wasn’t right, but just that it no longer applies to who he has become.

            If we apply Plato's view of truth, Vader either finally reaches an ultimate truth at the end of the series when he finds himself again, or he never does because he doesn't seem to know what it means to understand his soul. Plato doesn't offer much room for growth; there is one truth, and you have to find it and stick with it, or you fall even further from perfection. 

            I like Scott’s version of truth because it allows for a lot more freedom in find what is true. With Plato, it’s difficult to ever reach a point of truth because we’re so concerned with finding what the ultimate truth is instead of what our personal truth is for the moment we’re in. I think this kind of truth is more freeing but as humans we seem to complicate this idea. We have a hard time believing that truth can change, and it even seems like a wishy washy concept because then anyone can say that they’re different and we have to accept that when our past experience may not allow us to fully hold onto that pronouncement. On paper, conditional truth is a great idea and it shows growth of people; most people don’t stay the same their entire lives. However, in reality, we sometimes have issues with changing truth. Even with all of the issues that could arise, I respect Scott’s idea of truth and think it’s much better suited for our society than Plato’s.