INCEPTION - A Dream within a Dream within a Dream...
Inception (Warner Brothers)1 is great mind bending science fiction thrill ride that came about at the last minute when I began to wonder “are there any good movies coming out this summer?” It is about a team of thieves led by Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) whom use technology to enter into the minds of others to steal their secrets all the while navigating around the target’s subconscious, which manifests itself as various people within the dream world intent on killing the dream invaders. As the story goes, Cobb is hired to do a special kind of job, which involves “inception,” or the implanting of an idea into the target’s subconscious that would determine a future action delivered via a dream within a dream within another dream.
There is a definite critique against the basic reliability of sense perception woven into the storyline of Inception. For instance, the downside of those continually entering into the dream world is they become unable to determine whether or not they are awake, save using a totem, which is object that has a unique characteristic that helps determine one’ s state of mind. Cobb’s is a top. After he spins the top, if it eventually stops spinning, then he is certainly not dreaming. Yet, even this can be proven to be ineffective, since by use of “inception,” one can convince another that the dream world is reality whereas reality is but a dream. This actually turned out to be the source of a dark hole of despair for Cobb, since his own wife through “inception” became unable to determine reality, which led to her own death. So the movie does offer its own philosophical critique on the basis reliability of sense perception. How does one determine what they sense (see; hear; touch; taste; smell) is what they are experiencing while awake as opposed to being asleep? This is a brand of philosophical skepticism.
Hendrik van der Breggen in a critique against what he considers to be “Funky/Pop Skepticism,” offers some things to consider when movies like Inception pose challenges the basic reliability of sense perception. Simply because we can imagine a doubt does not mean the doubt actually exists. There is also a difference between logical possibility and plausible/probability, and simply because doubt is logically possible does not mean the doubt is true. Simply because someone asserts doubt exists does not mean one must accept the actually exists without being offered some evidence. To accept “Funky/Pop Skepticism” also involves having good reason to reject all the evidence that challenges the “Funky/Pop Skepticism” hypothesis. To accept something that is logically possible as the mere basis for truth, would also mean one would have to accept many other things that are logically possible that are truly absurd (e.g. The Matrix, Batman, a moon made of cheese).2
So one can imagine they are dreaming, but that does not mean they are dreaming. Simply because it’s possible that I am dreaming about posting this blog, does not mean I am dreaming about posting a blog. To believe all this is a dream would also involve denying the truth about other things I am certain about that go against the notion a dream (The conversations I had with someone else about the movie. The charge to my debit card—if it is a dream, I should not have to pay anything). It is true that our senses can fool us; however, they are for the most part basically reliable. If one wakes up, smells smoke, and feels a surge of pain from a door radiating with heat, then it is wise to conclude with good certainty there is a fire, and that is not the way out of the burning house.
So what’s all the fuss about? Is there any practical use for all this stuff? The basic reliability of sense perception is foundational principle presupposed in the Scriptures. Consider the following passages:
1 John 1:1-4
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete (1 John 1:1-4, NASB 1995).
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB 1995).
The first Christians witnessed the resurrected Lord, which transformed their lives so radically that they were willing to give up their foundational doctrines of first century Judaism (e.g. temple sacrifices, strict monotheism for a monotheistic triune deity) along with Jewish cultural distinctions (kosher laws) at the risk of hell, all of which can only accounted for by the reality of the resurrection. If their senses were off, and they really did not see what they thought they saw. If all they saw was a hallucination, a visual anomaly, a dream, and Christ did not rise, then we are all lost.
Inception gets it right in pointing out that an idea planted into the mind of a person can have grand consequences.
1.SPOILER ALERT! FYI. I saw the movie a couple of weeks ago, and it has been out for a while, so hopefully this post is not ruining it for anyone.
2. Hendrik van der Breggen, “Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism,” Christian Research Journal, 31, 5 [2008]: 14.
There is a definite critique against the basic reliability of sense perception woven into the storyline of Inception. For instance, the downside of those continually entering into the dream world is they become unable to determine whether or not they are awake, save using a totem, which is object that has a unique characteristic that helps determine one’ s state of mind. Cobb’s is a top. After he spins the top, if it eventually stops spinning, then he is certainly not dreaming. Yet, even this can be proven to be ineffective, since by use of “inception,” one can convince another that the dream world is reality whereas reality is but a dream. This actually turned out to be the source of a dark hole of despair for Cobb, since his own wife through “inception” became unable to determine reality, which led to her own death. So the movie does offer its own philosophical critique on the basis reliability of sense perception. How does one determine what they sense (see; hear; touch; taste; smell) is what they are experiencing while awake as opposed to being asleep? This is a brand of philosophical skepticism.
Hendrik van der Breggen in a critique against what he considers to be “Funky/Pop Skepticism,” offers some things to consider when movies like Inception pose challenges the basic reliability of sense perception. Simply because we can imagine a doubt does not mean the doubt actually exists. There is also a difference between logical possibility and plausible/probability, and simply because doubt is logically possible does not mean the doubt is true. Simply because someone asserts doubt exists does not mean one must accept the actually exists without being offered some evidence. To accept “Funky/Pop Skepticism” also involves having good reason to reject all the evidence that challenges the “Funky/Pop Skepticism” hypothesis. To accept something that is logically possible as the mere basis for truth, would also mean one would have to accept many other things that are logically possible that are truly absurd (e.g. The Matrix, Batman, a moon made of cheese).2
So one can imagine they are dreaming, but that does not mean they are dreaming. Simply because it’s possible that I am dreaming about posting this blog, does not mean I am dreaming about posting a blog. To believe all this is a dream would also involve denying the truth about other things I am certain about that go against the notion a dream (The conversations I had with someone else about the movie. The charge to my debit card—if it is a dream, I should not have to pay anything). It is true that our senses can fool us; however, they are for the most part basically reliable. If one wakes up, smells smoke, and feels a surge of pain from a door radiating with heat, then it is wise to conclude with good certainty there is a fire, and that is not the way out of the burning house.
So what’s all the fuss about? Is there any practical use for all this stuff? The basic reliability of sense perception is foundational principle presupposed in the Scriptures. Consider the following passages:
1 John 1:1-4
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete (1 John 1:1-4, NASB 1995).
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB 1995).
The first Christians witnessed the resurrected Lord, which transformed their lives so radically that they were willing to give up their foundational doctrines of first century Judaism (e.g. temple sacrifices, strict monotheism for a monotheistic triune deity) along with Jewish cultural distinctions (kosher laws) at the risk of hell, all of which can only accounted for by the reality of the resurrection. If their senses were off, and they really did not see what they thought they saw. If all they saw was a hallucination, a visual anomaly, a dream, and Christ did not rise, then we are all lost.
Inception gets it right in pointing out that an idea planted into the mind of a person can have grand consequences.
1.SPOILER ALERT! FYI. I saw the movie a couple of weeks ago, and it has been out for a while, so hopefully this post is not ruining it for anyone.
2. Hendrik van der Breggen, “Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism,” Christian Research Journal, 31, 5 [2008]: 14.
Comments
Post a Comment