The criterion problem refers to the state in which we ask: What are we aware of? How can we tell the difference between true and false knowledge? How do we determine whether knowledge is true? How can we tell if these methods are correct or not? The problem with criteria, in essence, tries a pin-down the roots of knowledge. We have a list of beliefs that we would like to separate into good and bad.
Next, we need to decide what method to use to determine if the beliefs are positive or negative. We will ask again, “What are good and bad methods?” Before moving on we ask, “What are good and bad methods?” This is where I believe we are going. This can create a situation where every question leads to the next with no apparent end. Cesar’s main character, Abre Los Ojos faces a difficult decision at its end. He must decide whether to awaken or remain in his dream. The film is very difficult to distinguish between what’s real and what’s not. Is Cesar awake or asleep? When Cesar is asleep, is the world in which he awakens the same as the one he dreamed of? How does he know whether he has woken up in reality or a different dream? This brings us back to our original problem.
Chisholm describes a number of different approaches to solving the problem. These include skeptism as well as particularism and methodology. Cesar can’t use skepticism to tell if he dreams or not. He will be asking himself about what he is aware of his current circumstances. Is this man dreaming? How can he know if he’s dreaming? He can’t respond to the question without answering the second. The second question cannot be answered until the first has been answered. Then he has no answers to either question.
The particularist assumes that you have an answer to your first question, and then use it to determine the second. Cesar claims to know the answer when asked, “Am-I-dreaming?” He will then be able determine whether he dreams or not. Cesar can determine whether he is actually dreaming. This can happen in two scenarios. In the first case, Cesar is in a bar and meets the TV guy. He is then told he might be dreaming in the conversation that follows. When he denies, the room becomes quiet. Everyone is watching him as he runs to leave in disbelief. Second, there is the shooting scene. Antonio, Cesar’s psychiatrist, is caught between Cesar, the police, and the gunfire, but he stands up, unharmed, as everyone else leaves. Cesar is now accepting that it’s possible he was dreaming.
The method works in the opposite direction. It is claimed that if you know the answer, then you can figure out the first question. Cesar declares he can answer the question, “How will I know that I am asleep?”. If he has the answer to the second question, “How do I know if I am dreaming?” then he will also be able ot answer first. The movie shows that Cesar has no control over his own actions. He’s erratic, and he hallucinates. His behavior makes it impossible to tell if he’s dreaming.
Chisholm prefers the particularist response amongst all three. He believes that our knowledge is inherent. He claims that there is no need to use any criteria or test to determine whether you are aware that this hand is real. He says that hallucinations are possible, but this does not mean that we are being deceived by our senses. This is a problem for me because I believe that our senses are not reliable. Our senses have failed us time and time again. Chisholm confirms this by stating that hallucinations are a form of illusion. Despite the fact that he ignores them, i still do not believe we should base our faith on sensations which are sometimes true but not always. Truth and not half truths are the basis for knowledge. Chisholm’s particularism falls short of the standard of absolute truth.
Comments are closed.