If one were to hear the experiences of Gil Pender at the end of Midnight in Paris, one might think him mad, intoxicated, dumb, or a mixture of all three. After all, none of what he said could be real, right? However, looking deeper into the knowledge and wisdom that he gained from the supposed escapades he went on, the experiences that Gil Pender may or may not have actually experienced actually seemed to help his piteous life. Here in this gained knowledge and wisdom is where Midnight in Paris displays an epistemological truth, in that regardless of whether or not the experience is real, as long as the knowledge gained from that experience is helpful and meaningful, the source should not matter. In the movie, Gil is brought back in time…show more content… Only interpretation, Aristotle would have argued, of what he is seeing would be where the deception lies, not the senses. Luckily for Gil, his interpretation turned out to be helpful and got Gil out of the pitiful situation he was in. Unlike Aristotle, however, Gil never asked the why, and simply just did what needed to be done.
For example, the 1920’s car that appears at midnight on the corner to whisk away Gil to a bygone era. Sure, it works everytime, but there is never a question about why it always comes at midnight and how it manages to time travel by simply driving through Paris. Aristotle would have asked why. But, aside from suspension of disbelief about the movie itself, there is a deeper meaning to the mystery of the time traveling car and later, horse and buggy: maybe that is the point of the time traveling vehicle, to be a means to an end while disregarding the means entirely. Regardless of how the vehicle time travels, or where it came from, or why it comes for Gil at midnight, it just works and that it can be used consistently. It is actually a good comparison to Gil’s interactions with Hemingway and Steinbeck. How did he get to 1923? He went in a time traveling car. How did he fix his life? He talked to a group of long dead authors and artists from the early 20th century. Which circles this whole argument back around to Pragmatism. Did it