The Possibility of Universal Dreaming
So here's the essay I wrote for philosophy today. I make no gurantees that it's worthwhile, but Jeremy had asked for it so here goes.
In the first of Descartes’ Meditations, the Meditator rejects what the senses tell her, even under ideal conditions, on the grounds that she might be dreaming. She states that “my evening slumber persuades me of such ordinary things as these: that I am here, clothed in my dressing gown, seated next to the fireplace – when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!” (AW 28) This is the possibility of universal dreaming; that everything that we recollect has been a dream, and that we cannot distinguish between what we experience when we are awake and when we are asleep. The Painter’s Analogy fits in to this conclusion by stating that what we dream is based upon the things that we see while we are awake. Furthermore, the Analogy states that things we think about that do not exist are simply created by building on pre-existing things, and we are unable to create in our minds something that is completely unreal.
The Dream Argument seems to be most simply restated as follows: we have no real way of knowing whether we are awake or asleep. The aforementioned quote by the Meditator implies that the dream world is so similar to the real world that we can easily remember events from either as having really happened. Continuing along this path, we arrive at a point that I consider to be somewhat difficult to grasp: the fact that these worlds may in fact be completely reversed. That is, the world that we perceive as the dream world may in fact be the real world, and vice versa. This argument runs in to a problem, however, when we consider our earlier problem of distinguishing between the two worlds. If we truly cannot distinguish between the two, how can we argue that the two are reversed? This is of little concern, because the argument seems to state that it is possible that dreaming is universal. If this is true, then we can accept that everything is a dream, and there is no need to distinguish between the two worlds. In support of this argument, the Meditator states, “As I consider these matters more carefully, I see so plainly that there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep.” (AW 28) This explicit statement by the Meditator directly supports the conclusion that the reason why we struggle to find a difference between the dream world and real world is that there is none.
There are two possible conclusions to be reached from the Dream Argument. The first is the universal possibility of dreaming. This argument is made as follows: first, the Meditator assumes that when she is dreaming, she has similar experiences to those when she is awake; she then thinks that she is awake and is having a waking experience; it then follows that she might be dreaming now; and if she is dreaming now, then her present sensory experiences are not veridical. The second conclusion, which I have chosen, is the possibility of universal dreaming. This conclusion follows closely to the previous conclusion, but has a different conclusion from the first two premises. In the possibility of universal dreaming conclusion, instead of thinking that she might be dreaming, the Meditator adds an extra step, stating that she must always be dreaming. From this step, she then follows that she must be dreaming now, which leads to the same end result as the universal possibility of dreaming. The real difference between these two conclusions is rather simple. While both of them state that it is possible that she is dreaming at any point in time, there is only one conclusion, the possibility of universal dreaming, that states that dreaming is taking place all the time. This constant dreaming forms the basis of the argument that there is no distinction between the real world and the dream world, since if there is a constant state of dreaming, there will be no difference between the two worlds.
After stating the Dream Argument, the Meditator moves on and offers the Painter’s Analogy. The Meditator states that what we see while we are asleep are “like painted images, which could only have been produced in the likeness of true things, and that therefore at least these general things – eyes, head, hands, and the whole body – are not imaginary things, but are true and exist.” (AW 28) This supports the conclusion of the possibility of universal dreaming, since if what we dream is modeled after what we see in real life, then we might have no way of knowing what the difference is. Furthermore, the Analogy goes on to state, “For indeed when painters themselves wish to represent sirens and satyrs by means of especially bizarre forms, they surely cannot assign to them utterly new natures. Rather, they simply fuse together the members of various animals.” (AW 28) This conclusion, while somewhat extraneous to the conclusion of the possibility of universal dreaming, brings up an interesting point. It argues that we cannot have any ideas that we have completely imagined. Everything that we think of in our minds is actually the product of a multitude of different objects, brought together in our minds to create something new. The best way to tie this in to the conclusion of the possibility of universal dreaming is to think that this creation of new ideas requires our mind to be dreaming, in the sense of suspending sensory input and instead relying solely upon what we already have in mind to create the unique object. This argument may run in to a problem, however, when we consider that if we are always dreaming, and have always been dreaming, then how have we been able to gather the ideas in our head that are necessary for the fusion of new things? The answer is simple: while conventional wisdom may tell us that we must use our senses to perceive things, the Meditator’s rejection of the senses as deceiving provides us with an easy way around this. Instead of having to gain ideas by using our senses, we can think that there is some external force that is responsible for putting these ideas in our minds.
After reading Meditation I, I think that the Meditator supports the possibility of universal dreaming. The Dream Argument seems to support the idea that we cannot distinguish between the real world and the dream world quite easily, and it follows that if we cannot do this, then it is possible that there is no difference. This possibility of universal dreaming differs from the universal possibility of dreaming in that while both state that the Meditator may be dreaming at the present time, thereby making her experiences non-veridical, the possibility of universal dreaming takes it a step further and supposes that every experience has been a dream. This is logical, because deciding when your experiences changed to dreams from waking experiences seems nearly impossible, so by accepting that all of our experiences ever have been dreams, we avoid this problem. Finally, the Painter’s Analogy works in by supporting the idea that none of our ideas are completely unique, and that since what we see in our dreams is based on what we see when we are awake, then we are hard pressed to determine the difference between the two worlds.
Now wasn't that deep and philosophically insightful? Yeah... didn't think so.
T-Minus 4 hours and 36 minutes.
END OF LINE.