I’m sure it feels very real to you
“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
– Epictetus
While sequels are common in cinema, worthwhile ones are rare. It is difficult to place a finger on exactly what makes or breaks a follow up film, but there is a noticeable pattern in those that succeed - they broaden without bloating.
They expand upon the themes and characters of their predecessor in such a way that their world gains from the sequel’s existence. The first film creates the room, and the second shows what’s outside the window - see Aliens and Blade Runner 2049 as stellar examples of this idea.
Opportunistic sequels retread the same ideas – repeating images, actions and themes in an attempt to replicate the success of the first film. Worthwhile sequels, while containing an element of repetition, have more to say. This can be seen in T2 and is one of the key factors why it is still held up as one of the greatest film sequels ever made. This idea of more to say can be demonstrated by one specific individual, who alongside Sarah, is the only character to appear in both Terminator films:
In The Terminator (1984), Dr. Silberman represented conventional wisdom in opposition to Reese’s nightmarish future. Though Silberman was an expert in the field of psychology, the way in which he handled Reese’s case demonstrated not only limitations in his knowledge, but also a more dangerous sense of closed-mindedness.
Sarah Connor: “Are you a doctor?”
Dr. Silberman: (yawning) “Criminal psychologist.”
“Through familiarity to this line of work, the doctor’s responses have become ingrained, almost automatic, or robotic.”
- Excerpt from “Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant.”
We can see a man who is bored within his profession; having seen all there is to see. With nothing phasing him, he stands at the very limits of knowledge in his field of study.
This is further highlighted in the following exchange:
Sarah Connor: “Is Reese crazy?”
Dr Silberman: “In technical terminology, he’s a loon.”
Silberman’s uses the term ‘loon’ – an informal version of the word ‘loony’ (meaning someone of an unsound mind). The telling point here is Silberman’s lack of professional decorum - using informal, derogatory language to describe one patient to another. This demonstrates both his disdain for the case and highlights his outright dismissal of Reese’s account - despite calling it “intricate” and “brilliant”.
As mentioned in the previous Terminator analysis, this highlights a key flaw in his learning process, and indicates epistemological hubris when it comes to knowledge:
“This shows a flaw in Silberman’s thinking. His mind is already made up that Reese is insane, and regardless of how believable the story is, he will never be convinced. The irony here is that Reese is telling the truth, and the psychologist is incapable of detecting this.”
Excerpt from “Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant.”
Regardless of the veracity of Reese’s claims, Silberman has no intention of believing him. This is due to the situation lying beyond the realm of his knowledge, and occupying a space that has two possible outcomes: admitting a lack of knowledge in the area, or making an assumption based on analogy - which could be incorrect. Both options would impact Silberman’s reputation as an expert in his field, therefore a third option is chosen – outright dismissal of the case, regardless of the proof that Reese offers. This demonstrates the dual function of knowledge and the dangers held within the label of ‘expert’.
“There is no knowledge that is not power.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
While knowledge serves as a foundation for development, it also serves as a self-limiting factor to the human existence.
Like the consequences of time travel, the acquisition of knowledge creates a complicated paradox:
It stimulates mental growth;
opens the door to new opportunities; and,
paves the way to better understanding.
However, within the foundation of learning there is an inherent limitation. Where momentum is gained in a specific direction of study, movement becomes restricted. This is especially true when new ideas are discovered in a field of established expertise. Something may be universally recognized as true, but incomplete truth can become a falsehood when the whole is revealed. This results in an epistemological struggle on the part of the expert – do they bring the completeness of their knowledge to question? Or, do they dismiss the outside thought and continue on their path? Rather than debate an idea, it is easier to dismiss it. Instead of entertaining a possibility, it is rejected.
If we close the door too tightly, the tower of knowledge can become a prison.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
- Stephen Hawkins
While this idea was planted in The Terminator, it comes to fruition in T2. The area in which our knowledge ends and our assumptions begin is where we make both our biggest discoveries and our deadliest mistakes. This concept is at the very heart of Sarah Connor’s relationship with her savior turned nemesis – Dr. Silberman.
During Sarah Connor’s introduction, we see the contrast of perspectives between both characters – Sarah’s resolve in preparation for judgement day, and Dr. Silberman’s confidence in his understanding. While they are at polar opposites in terms of their approach, they have one thing in common – both are certain that they are correct.
Silberman’s diagnosis of acute schizo–effective disorder consists of the following symptoms:
depression
anxiety
violent acting-out
delusions of persecution
repeated escape attempts
On the surface Sarah does indeed display these characteristics, proving the accuracy of Silberman’s diagnosis. However, when we examine both his and his colleague’s perspective, we see a key flaw within their methodology:
Dr. Silberman: “The delusional architecture is fairly unique. She believes in a machine called a terminator, which looks human of course, was sent back through time to kill her.”
Visiting psychologist: “That’s original.”
Dr. Silberman: “And also that the father of her child was a soldier sent back to protect her.”
Visiting psychologist: (amused) “No!”
What stands out here is Silberman’s strange selection of words - ‘fairly unique’.
Unique is a binary state and requires no modifier. With the doctor being educated to a PHD level, it is unlikely that he would make this error unintentionally. Instead, his use of the word ‘fairly’ indicates that despite the unusual nature of the case, he is unwilling to question the limitations of his expertise. There isn’t even the slightest thought that Sarah’s story could be true, and this is reflected in Silberman’s conversation. This is further demonstrated visually:
Rather than Sarah being an opportunity to question the extent of their knowledge, they view her as a curious anomaly to their expertise.
This demonstrates that at a specific point in their studies, a conscious decision was made and a line was drawn - their level of knowledge was deemed sufficient to explain any encounter from that point onward. They effectively placed reality into a box labelled ‘understood’.
“To define is to limit”
- Oscar Wilde
While this is acceptable when learning concepts with a clearly defined end, it is a hubristic position to take in areas of limitless possibilities, such as science. That these psychologists are curious about Sarah is telling – her case is a point of interest precisely because it lies outside of the scope of their expertise.
Regardless of what Sarah does or says from here onward, she will always be viewed through the lens of Silberman’s initial diagnosis. This is shown when Sarah attempts to recant her story:
Sarah Connor: “I feel much better now. Clearer.”
Dr. Silberman: “Yes, your attitude has been much improved lately.”
Sarah Connor: “It’s helped to have a goal. Something to look forward to.”
Dr. Silberman: (smiling) “And what is that?”
Sarah Connor: “You said that if I showed improvement after six months, you would transfer me to the minimum security wing and I could have visitors. Well, it’s been six months. I was looking forward to seeing my son.”
Dr. Silberman: “I see. Let’s go back to what you were saying about those terminator machines. Now you think they don’t exist.”
Sarah Connor: “They don’t exist, I know that now.”
Dr. Silberman: “But you’ve told me on many occasions about how you crushed one in a hydraulic press.”
Sarah Connor: “If I had, there would have been some evidence. They would have found something at the factory.”
Dr. Silberman: “I see. So you don’t believe anymore that the company covered it up?”
Sarah Connor: “No, why would they?...So what do you think doctor? I’ve shown improvement, haven’t I?”
Dr. Silberman: “Well, Sarah, here’s the problem: I know how smart you are. You’re just telling me what I want to hear. I don’t think you believe what you’re telling me. If I put you in minimum security you’ll just try to escape again.”
Sarah Connor: “You have to let me see my son. Please… Please. He’s in great danger. He’s naked without me. If I could just make a phone call.”
Dr. Silberman: “I’m afraid not. Not for a while. I don’t see any choice but to recommend to the review board that you stay here for another six months.”
Her frustration can be understood here - even if Sarah legitimately acknowledged her earlier experience as a psychotic episode, it is unlikely that Silberman would believe her. With her situation being outside of his psychological knowledge, Silberman has three options:
He could believe her fantastical story – the consequences of which cause other psychologists to question his mental well being.
He could acknowledge that this case is unlike anything he has encountered before, admit that it lies beyond the realm of his current understanding, and conduct further studies.
He could label her as insane, despite the uniqueness of her case, and view her as an anomaly to that which he already knows.
Looking at the three options, it is clear that the most logical option is the second one, yet this is the one not chosen by a mental health specialist. Here we see the dangers inherent in being an expert – where we don’t understand, we map our assumptions based on experience. This works when dealing with the familiar, but in uncharted territory, this reasoning by analogy can prove costly.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
- Albert Einstein
While Silberman was astute enough to see Sarah was faking her answers, his overall diagnosis of her condition is fundamentally flawed. Due to his focus on maintaining the illusion of expertise, he does not have the scope to incorporate new data, or unseen circumstances. Simply put, His knowledge has a clear end, and he can only diagnose that which he has encountered before - he has to view Sarah Connor as insane. This raises an interesting point – if for arguments sake he did start to believe her, how could he even begin to explain it to his peers?
This adds another level of irony. When looking at Sarah’s symptoms today, they do not feel like indicators of insanity. Instead, they evoke a sense modern life.
A distrust of and strong resistance to authority
Feelings of persecution and being unfairly treated
Attempting to escape from their current situation
There are disturbing implications to the diagnosis – namely, – How many people have experienced these feelings and been locked away, despite being completely sane?
“Maybe each human being lives in a unique world, a private world different from those inhabited and experienced by all other humans. . . If reality differs from person to person, can we speak of reality singular, or shouldn't we really be talking about plural realities? And if there are plural realities, are some more true (more real) than others? What about the world of a schizophrenic? Maybe it's as real as our world. Maybe we cannot say that we are in touch with reality and he is not, but should instead say, His reality is so different from ours that he can't explain his to us, and we can't explain ours to him. The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication ... and there is the real illness.”
- Philip K Dick
A key point must be made here - This is not to say that people should become conspiracy theorists, or believe any outlandish story comes their way. Rather that it is wiser to know where our knowledge ends, and instead of outright dismissing things outside of our sphere of experience, it is better to question why they aren’t part of common knowledge.
An interesting parallel can be drawn here to a recent development in the field of ufology – a social media savvy astrophysicist has repeatedly ridiculed and dismissed the idea of alien life, despite such compelling evidence as the 2004 Nimitz incident. This lack of scientific curiosity from a trained scientist echoes Silberman’s stance, and shows an inability to acknowledge our epistemological limitations.
This doesn’t mean that we should believe in aliens, time traveling robots, or beings from the fourth dimension, but to comment on these areas with certainty is an act of hubris. As a simple demonstration of the relative nature of impossibility, we simply need to look at history:
“What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?”
- The Quarterly Review, 1825
“That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.”
- Scientific American, 1909
“To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth—all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.”
- Lee De Forest, 1957
It’s strange that we continue to paint our assumptions where the walls of our understanding are thin. The key point here is that while it’s important to know, it’s also important to understand when we don’t know, when to ignore our assumptions and instead pay attention.
“A man’s gotta know his limitations.”
- Blondie, The Good, “The Bad, and The Ugly”
Failing to do this can lead to disastrous consequences, and we see this manifest in Silberman’s professional and personal demise.