Dreams differ from other physiological experiences primarily due to their occurrence during sleep. According to Dunlop, dreams occur as true and realistic experiences despite the fact that they occur during sleep[1]. Therefore, when an individual sleeps, he or she is believes a dream to be true, more so due to the realistic experiences that occur when sleeping. Descartes was keen to distinguish the difference between sleep and reality by asking whether humans can differentiate between dreaming and reality. Dunlop further asserts that dreams are difficult to discern from reality since they appear to be true when they occur[2]. Therefore, the paper will aim to prove that an individual cannot know when not dreaming. Further, upon proving that it is impossible to distinguish a dream from reality, the paper aims to determine the implications of the assertion; this will be done by analyzing influential philosophers who attempted to distinguish dreams from reality.
The statement ‘I do not know that I am not dreaming’ falls under skeptical hypothesis. Landesman defines skeptical hypothesis as a supposition that aims to explain why people take things to be true despite the fact that they might be untrue[3]. Therefore, in regards to dreams, one might assume that he or she is awake despite being deep in slumber [4]. Skeptics argue that since an individual cannot prove the reality or falsehood of a dream, then he cannot prove that he is not dreaming by arguing that he is awake. Skeptics` argument is based on the basis of generalizability asserting that reality cannot be proven by claiming to not be dreaming[5]. Therefore, it is safe to assert that based on a skeptical perspective, it is difficult to prove that one is not dreaming even when an individual is fully awake.
However, George Edward Moore came up with the theory of contraposition whereby no argument can be termed superior unless the opponent can provide better reasons or justifications for drawing the conclusion that one is not dreaming. Therefore, based on Moore`s concept, if someone is not dreaming, then whether he is not dreaming regardless of whether he is awake or asleep; accordingly, Moore focuses on the plausibility of claims in his assertions as his argument is based on the law of contrapositive[6].
To answer the question from Moore`s point of view, it will be necessary to consider the question of dreaming as two separate entities. The first entity is the probability of an individual not dreaming. Moore argues that for one to truly assert that he is not then he will need to prove through proper justifications that indeed, he is not dreaming; additionally, Moore reiterates that one can only prove that he is not dreaming by providing good reasons that prove he is awake[7]. The second entity is proving that one is not aware that he is not dreaming.
According to Moore, Descarte`s view that there lacks clear signs to prove that one is not dreaming is incorrect[8]. He argues that the lack of sure signs of distinguishing dreams from reality prevents one from truly proving that he doesn’t know that he is not dreaming. Thus, for Moore, there should be legitimate signs to allow one to make relevant conclusions. Moore argues against the belief that an individual cannot prove that he is not dreaming by reiterating that there lacks enough signs to prove than one is actually dreaming[9]. Moreover, Moore suggests that Arguments by Sceptical Hypothesis resembles a puzzle whereby one of the arguments in question can be true but not both. Thus, Moore advices that when faced with ASH, it is necessary to reject or suspend belief of one member of the set that appears least likely to be true[10].
Basing the argument on common sense as advised by Moore, it is clear that one would prefer to assume that he is awake as opposed to dreaming. Therefore, the more obvious answer in regards to Arguments by Sceptical Hypothesis should be assumed to be correct as common sense should prevail over assumptions or alternatives. Further, Moore argues on the need to consider alternatives as opposed to skeptical conclusions. To expound further, skeptical conclusions are not justifiable and lead to further assumptions; thus, it is necessary to consider alternatives to skeptical conclusions as they are more often than not based on common sense and likely to be closer to the truth than skeptical conclusions.
Agreeing that one does not know that he or she is dreaming can either be based on truth or belief[11]. That is, it is impossible for one to know a false object or subject. Revonsuo asserts that truth does not need to be known or proven in order to be true[12]. To put it in perspective, if one is not aware that he is not dreaming then whether he is dreaming or not is not subject to assumption but remains true despite the individual`s incapability to prove that he is not dreaming. According to Wisdom, truth is metaphysical and not epistemological which implies that truth is a representation of how things exist and not how they can be proven to exist[13]. However, knowledge is relative to truth which implies a lack of knowledge does not affect an idea`s or concept`s ability to remain true. On the other hand, one can believe something that is not entirely true. Moreover, belief and knowledge go hand in hand as once cannot believe without having the required knowledge. Thus, to believe that one is not dreaming depends on the available information which creates knowledge. One cannot believe that he is awake if he is unaware of what it means to be awake. For one to not know that he is not dreaming means that the person lacks knowledge on what it means to dream or to stay awake. In contrast, it is vital to understand the relationship between knowledge and belief is not based on truth. An individual can believe that he or she is not dreaming despite actually dreaming.
For the statement to be true, there must be evidence that justifies the belief[14]. For instance, to prove that one is actually dreaming, then it is necessary to prove the existence of the dream for the dream to be true. However, failure to prove or justify the legitimacy of a dream means one is solely relying on belief which as mentioned earlier does not necessarily represent truth. To determine if one is dreaming, it is necessary for one to be awake in a bid to distinguish a dream from a reality. To not know if one is not dreaming implies that one does not know whether he is asleep or awake. Therefore, one must have the knowledge and believe that he is not dreaming for the dream not to exist. However, regardless of the belief and knowledge, the real truth cannot be changed as it is the reality.
If one does not know that he is not dreaming, then the individual must also be unaware of whether he is asleep. Frankfurt
highlights that an opposing argument cannot be validated by a lack of evidence by the defending argument[15]. For a dream to occur, one must be asleep[16]. However, sleep can exist without dreaming; this implies that being unaware of a dream is a probability during sleep. Being unaware of a dream does not prevent the dream from occurring. Believing that a dream is occurring does not imply that it is truly occurring, instead, the statement points out to the confidence that one is dreaming[17].
For one to know that he is dreaming, then he must be able to distinguish dream and reality during sleep which is impossible. If someone wakes up during a dream, he cannot prove that he is not dreaming that he is awake. Thus, applying Moore`s concept is imperative in answering the question and determining whether an individual can truly tell whether he is not dreaming. In this case, skeptics will argue that since I do not know that I am not dreaming, then I am not dreaming in reality. However, the assumption is based on probabilities and does not consider the option that the subject could be aware that indeed, he is dreaming. Moore asserts that it is important for stakeholders to reject an option in the event of a dilemma that is impossible to prove[18]. Therefore, common sense should come into play and help determine which option is less realistic.
Applying common sense to the answer will help provide a solution which is not guaranteed to be true. The statement ‘I do not know if I am not dreaming’ if examined profoundly, implies that one is unaware if he is awake. That is, there is a high probability that an individual might think he is asleep when in truth, he is awake. However, the realistic argument in this case would be to believe that one cannot be asleep for long durations and as a result, conclude that he or she is awake. From Moore`s perspective, one has to make assumptions when dealing with ASH[19]. As mentioned above, the realistic option would be to assume that an individual is awake and will be aware when he or she is dreaming.
However, if analyzed from a skeptical perspective, the statement implies that he is not sure whether he is awake which can be taken to mean he is not awake. Skeptics argue that in such issues, the unrealistic option beats the more realistic one due to the incapability of the realistic to prove itself[20]. Therefore, this implies that since it is impossible to prove that one is not dreaming, it is also incorrect to assume that one is dreaming. Thus, in such a case, it is necessary to observe belief. Observing belief means focusing on the question at hand. If one believes it is impossible to determine whether he is not dreaming, then he should consider the belief and give it priority over the assumption that he is not dreaming[21]. However, it is important to note that belief does not necessarily translate to truth. One might believe that he is unaware of whether he is not dreaming which might not be the case. Skeptics believe that belief should come second to truth and should take priority when dealing with alternatives that are impossible to prove.
Indeed, the question shows an interrelation between truth, knowledge and belief. Despite the argument that truth cannot change even if it cannot be proven, it is impossible to determine whether an individual is dreaming or acting in real life. However, it is through belief that one can make a conclusion based on knowledge. An individual without adequate knowledge on how to distinguish dreams from reality cannot claim to know the truth. This is evident from the statement ‘I do not know I am not dreaming’, as can be seen, the statement reaffirms that the subject is unaware of whether or not he is dreaming. This implies that there is a possibility that he might or might not be dreaming. However, if there was knowledge on how to distinguish dreams from reality, then it would be possible to determine the truth and determine whether or not one is dreaming. Belief that one is dreaming does not represent truth as one might not be asleep, let alone dreaming. Knowledge and belief are mandatory for truth to be determined. Contrastingly, truth is independent of both knowledge and belief as it remains constant regardless of approach. To conclude, not knowing that one is not dreaming represents a lack of necessary knowledge on the differences between reality and dreams. However, under the assumption that an individual does not know when not dreaming, it is safe to assert that knowledge and belief will make the perception true as one can determine his own truth based on personal beliefs and knowledge. However, unlike conventional truth which cannot change regardless of circumstances, personal truth can change depending on beliefs and knowledge.
References
Dunlop, C.E. ed., 1977. Philosophical essays on dreaming. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Frankfurt, H.G., 2009. Demons, dreamers, and madmen: the defense of reason in Descartes's Meditations. Princeton University Press.
Landesman, C., 2002. Skepticism: The central issues.
Malcolm, N., 2017. Dreaming. Routledge.
Mijolla, A.D.E., 2005. International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, Volume 2: G-Pr. Macmillan Reference USA.
Milkov, N., 2004. GE Moore and the Greifswald Objectivists on the Given and the Beginning of Analytic Philosophy. Axiomathes, 14(4), pp.361-379.
Revonsuo, A., 1995. Consciousness, dreams and virtual realities. Philosophical Psychology, 8(1), pp.35-58.
Schilpp, P.A., 1952. The philosophy of GE Moore.
Von Franz, M.L., 1998. Dreams: A study of the dreams of Jung, Descartes, Socrates, and other historical figures. Shambhala Publications.
Wisdom, J.O., 1947. Three dreams of Descartes. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 28, p.11.
[1]
Dunlop, C.E. ed., 1977. Philosophical essays on dreaming. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[2] Ibid, 55
[3]
Landesman, C., 2002. Skepticism: The central issues.
[4] Ibid, 104
[5]
Malcolm, N., 2017. Dreaming. Routledge.
[6]
Schilpp, P.A., 1952. The philosophy of GE Moore.
[7] Ibid, 61
[8]
Von Franz, M.L., 1998. Dreams: A study of the dreams of Jung, Descartes, Socrates, and other historical figures. Shambhala Publications.
[9]
Milkov, N., 2004. GE Moore and the Greifswald Objectivists on the Given and the Beginning of Analytic Philosophy. Axiomathes, 14(4), pp.361-379.
[10]
Von Franz, M.L., 1998. Dreams: A study of the dreams of Jung, Descartes, Socrates, and other historical figures. Shambhala Publications.
[11]
Revonsuo, A., 1995. Consciousness, dreams and virtual realities. Philosophical Psychology, 8(1), pp.35-58.
[12]
Ibid, 18
[13]
Wisdom, J.O., 1947. Three dreams of Descartes. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 28, p.11.
[14]
Milkov, N., 2004. GE Moore and the Greifswald Objectivists on the Given and the Beginning of Analytic Philosophy. Axiomathes, 14(4), pp.361-379.
[15]
Frankfurt, H.G., 2009. Demons, dreamers, and madmen: the defense of reason in Descartes's Meditations. Princeton University Press.
[16]
Ibid, 50
[17]
Ibid, 55
[18]
Schilpp, P.A., 1952. The philosophy of GE Moore.
[19]
Von Franz, M.L., 1998. Dreams: A study of the dreams of Jung, Descartes, Socrates, and other historical figures. Shambhala Publications.
[20]
Mijolla, A.D.E., 2005. International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, Volume 2: G-Pr. Macmillan Reference USA.
[21]
Malcolm, N., 2017. Dreaming. Routledge.
