Jason Pugatch

Film Journal: Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)

1. At what point does Cesar become justified in believing that his imprisonment is a part of a
dream? Is he ever justified in believing this?
Cesar becomes justified in believing that his imprisonment is part of a dream when parts of
his past come to the surface in a dream-like way. Thus, due to the inconsistency in his
experience, Cesar and the audience have good reason to question whether or not he is
actually dreaming. His contract with Life-Extension, suicide, and the subsequent
awakening (waking up to a female voice), makes the reality of Cesars life even more
mysterious.
2. The psychologist says, Things are, or they are not. Does the film give us any reason to reject
this claim? Do you think its true?
The film does give us reason to reject this claim. In the film, things seem real in the sense
that Cesars sense faculties SEEM to be working in both of his realities. Nevertheless, the
drastic differences between the realities (i.e. disfigurement), in conjunction with Cesars
awareness of the two realities (under the assumption that he isnt insane), provide grounds
to doubt whether or not either of the realities are actually true or partially true. On a very
similar note, the film relates to Platos claims on reality: the world is filled with partial
truths and no actual truths. I take a stance that is similar to Platos: I neither reject nor
commit to the psychologists claim.

3. G.E. Moore argues against skepticism by using a modus tollens argument that weve now
considered in depth. Notice what would happen if Cesar were to use this argument while sitting
in his prison cell:
P1) If I dont know that Im not dreaming, then I dont know that I have hands.
P2) I know that I have hands.
C) I know that Im not dreaming.
Of course, Cesar is a dreaming. Where has he gone wrong in the above argument? Do you think
that you or I are in a better position to use this argument? Why?
Cesar goes wrong in his argument by begging the question in regards to knowing that he
has hands. He bases the second premise in his argument on evidential certainty, so he is
begging the question. A dilemma for those who appeal to Moorean facts: either Moorean
facts are defined in terms of psychological certainty, in which case they seem

epistemologically irrelevant, or else they are defined in terms of evidential certainty, in

which case it seems question-begging or excessively dogmatic to claim that something is a
Moorean fact (unless its a Moorean fact that that thing is a Moorean fact) (Harvard Phil
159 Epistemology Class notes). I think we are in a better position than Cesar to use the
modus tollens argument because unlike Cesar, we can better attempt to distinguish between
our waking and sleeping lives. Unlike Cesar, my waking and sleeping life are qualitatively
different; my waking life is more vivid. Cesars waking and sleeping lives are, more or less,
qualitatively equivalent. Also, I have routines in my waking life; I choose to drink orange
juice every morning. In other words, my waking life has a consistency that is absent in my
sleeping life. So, I can recognize whether I am awake or asleep on the basis of quality and
consistency whereas Cesar cannot. Furthermore, the way Cesars memories are jumbled
makes his use to distinguish between his waking and sleeping life even more hopeless. Even
though both us and Cesar still beg the question in P2, we do so to a lesser degree.
4. In the films final sequence, Cesar chooses to wake up in the real world, even though the
doctor suggests that he could remain in his dream state, without the nightmare elements. Why
do you think that Cesar chooses to leave his dream? Would you make the same choice? Why?
Cesar chooses to leave his dream because he thinks that living in a dream is meaningless.
He thinks that a valid reality is the only way to live a meaningful life, for better or worse. I
am indecisive about whether or not I would make the same choice, especially in virtue of
having been recently introduced to the Diamond Sutra.