The problem of criterion refers to a state in which we ask ourselves: what do we know? How can we distinguish true knowledge from false knowledge? What methods do we use to determine the veracity of knowledge? How do we know these methods are true or false? In a nutshell, the criterion problem seeks to identify the root of knowledge. Let's say we have a set of beliefs and we want to distinguish between good and bad beliefs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The next step then becomes what method we will use to determine whether beliefs are good or bad. Before we go any further, we still need to ask ourselves, “What is a good method and what is a bad method?” If you think this is the end of the road then you are wrong because we can still ask ourselves which is a good method and which is a bad method to determine a good method. I think we can see where this is going to go. This can lead to a loop-like scenario where each question leads to another seemingly endless one. In the film Abre Los Ojos, Cesar, the main protagonist, is ultimately faced with a decision. It's up to him to decide whether to wake up or stay in the dream world. After watching the movie, it's not really easy to discern what's real and what's not. In this case, is Cesar dreaming or awake? If he is dreaming, does Cesar wake up in the real world, or is the world he wakes up in an extension of his dream? How can you determine whether you are waking up in the real world or another dream? As you can see, this brings us back to the criterion problem. Chisholm describes three different responses to the problem, namely: skepticism, particularism, and methodism. As for Cesar's situation, skepticism will not help him determine whether he is dreaming or not. This is because he will wonder what he knows about his current situation. Is he dreaming or not? How can he say he's dreaming? He cannot answer the first question until he has answered the second. And he can't answer the second question until he's answered the first. He therefore remains unanswered to both. Particularism postulates that we have an answer to the first question and uses it as the basis for understanding the second question. Applying it to Caesar, he will claim to have the answer to the question “Am I dreaming?”. If he can determine whether he is dreaming, then he can figure out how he knows he is dreaming. Cesar may actually be able to determine if he is dreaming. This is possible in two situations. The first situation is the bar scene when Cesar meets the TV guy. In the next conversation he is told that he may be dreaming. He denies this, but then the whole room goes silent when he says to be quiet and everyone's eyes are on him as he runs away in disbelief. The second situation is the shooting scene. Antonio, his psychiatrist, puts himself between Cesar and the police just when the shots ring out but then gets up unharmed and while everyone else disappears. Cesar himself now accepts that he is indeed dreaming. Methodism works the other way around. The claim is that you have the answer to the second question and from there you get the answer to the first. Cesar begins by declaring that he has the answer to the second question: “How do I know I'm dreaming?”. If he knows how to find out if he is dreaming, then he can answer the first question. From the film we can deduce that Cesar is not in control of himself. He is erratic and has hallucinations. From his behavior he cannot determine whether he is dreaming. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay Among the three answers, Chisholm is a.