FREE ESSAY ON IS IT ALL A DREAM?

IS IT ALL A DREAM?

Phil 2003 H
Second Essay
Brandy L. Davis
Is it All a Dream?
In Descartes' Meditations, he attempts to outline his philosophical views of the mind and
body. Descartes knows that over the course of his life, he inadvertently accepted many
false beliefs (and their falsity infected other beliefs which he based on them). He
decides to sort through his beliefs, discard all the questionable ones, and retain only a
perfectly secure basis: some beliefs whose truth is beyond doubt. He begins by doubting
all that he "knows" and all that he "feels" in order that he may be absolutely certain
when he claims to have knowledge of anything. 
One of his initial methods of skepticism is to doubt everything that comes to him via the
sensual world. In order to do this, he suggests the possibility that he is always in a
dream state. Descartes remembers that sometimes when he is dreaming, he falsely believes
that he's awake. And, reflecting on this, Descartes thinks he can't ever tell whether or
not he's dreaming. Maybe it's all just a dream. If it were a dream, everything would seem
just the same. Thus, every bit of knowledge about the world that he gained would be
false. 
Descartes introduces the argument in his first meditation, but never fully explains his
reasons for dismissing it. Finally, at the end of his last meditation (VI), he offers a
response to this early concern. 
Descartes claims to have found a marked difference between the states of dreaming and
wakefulness. He adheres to the notion that memory is not linked and able to connect
dreams in sequential order as it is able to do with waking states. Additionally, he
concludes that if he is able to connect something, be it inanimate or animate, to its
past present and future occurrence or appearance in his life, then he is definitely
awake. He feels that such ability is not possible in the dream state. 
Finally, he states that if he has exhausted all his abilities and brought all of his
senses and faculties to bear on the satisfactory conclusion of the argument, and he still
concludes that he can determine he is awake, then he must be. This is supported by the
idea that his senses and faculties would be simultaneously deceiving him if he were
dreaming and was certain of the opposite. Since God is his creator, he would necessarily
be a deceiver if he allowed his creations to be so falsely made that they could be
completely deceived by the instruments He provided them. Additionally, because of his
refutation of the "God is a Deceiver" claim, he knows he is not dreaming.
In order for Descartes to be able to make the claim that doubting if one is dreaming is
not a serious doubt, he was first required to establish the following premises: God
exists, God is the creator of everything, God is not a deceiver, errors in perceptions
come from the misuse of the senses, and premature assumptions are the effect of errors in
perception. This, I believe, is why he did not go into great detail on his dismissal of
the possibility that he was dreaming in the first Meditation. For instance, it would be
impossible (following Descartes' logic) to explain why we would automatically dismiss the
claim that 2+2=5 without first establishing the following ideas: numbers exist, they can
be put together and their values increased, and that if you put them together in the same
ways, you will always end with the same value.
I have many issues with Descartes' response to the claim that whether one is dreaming or
not is a viable doubt. Most of them center around his unsatisfactory evidence for the
existence of God. However, I have been instructed not to pursue them, so I will refrain.
The conclusions he makes about this argument are unconvincing to me, as are all his other
conclusions. I will attempt to support my rebuttal of his claims.
My first problem is with his conclusion that our memory can't connect our dreams with
each other and with the course of life. This, in my experience, is completely false. I am
constantly certain of aspects of my childhood in which I have memories of the occurrence
from beginning to end and contextual information which thoroughly supports the fact that
the event occurred. However, upon describing the event and time frame to those who, I
recall, experienced it with me, I am informed that said event never happened. These
aspects were only dreams. Yet they were dreams so vivid and realistic that I retain them
as memories. Thus, at a given time, I did use all my faculties and senses to ascertain
that the event was factual. However, later on (even years later) I find that I was in
error. Therefore, the question poses itself: "Did God, the non-deceiver, create me such
that I could deceive myself unwittingly?" 
On another note, given the situation of one of, if not the, most famous paintings in
current society, the Mona Lisa, one must re-evaluate the assumption that errors in
perception stem from misuse of the senses. For instance, there are five separate
paintings of the Mona Lisa which have all been credited with being the original,
authentic masterpiece by professionals. However, to assume that any one of these people
are guilty of misusing their faculties or senses in any way, is preposterous. Each one
used everything available to them, in order to identify the authenticity of the painting.
Yet, the argument remains unsolved. Thus, there is an obvious error in perception which
is in no way linked to misuse of the senses.
Another problem that I have with Descartes is that he claims that the senses are only
deceptive when things are far away or in the distance, and a closer look will uncover the
deception. However, how do we know that the closer look isn't a deception? How do I know
that I am not now in bed dreaming? You don't know that you are dreaming
until you wake up, so you can never know for sure if you are dreaming, because I could be
dreaming that I am dreaming, and so on.