Slashdot Mirror
The Matrix Movie Now in a College Course
koolade writes "It looks like The Matrix meant a lot to some people at the University of Washington in Seattle, since an introductory philosophy class is now being offered based on the movie. You can read about it here."
The Matrix is probably one of the worst movie I ever seen. While special effects were very impressive, the underlying ideas of the film were nasty, at least.
I'm a sci-fi fan, majorly interested in conscience/reality (Who have the movie rights on Ubik or The Three Stigmata Of Plamer Eldricht ?). Dark City, Total Recall, PI, Cube, or Existenz are IMHO *much* better than the Matrix.
Why? In the Matrix, the so-called 'good guys' kill a few dozen of innocent people. It is not 'virtual', as people killed in the matrix dies in real life too. It is not by accident, and is glorified by special effects. By comparison, the so-called bad guys don't kill any one (It is not clear if people die when they 'transfer' into their body). I don't mind nasty films (ie: Tesis is one of the best movie I ever seen), but people admiring The Matrix don't seems to have the distanciation to see that Neo probably took the wrong pill. The same thing hold for Starship Troopers (Why didn't Verhoeven choosed to adapt The Forever War instead ?)
Taking this movie as a base for *philosophical* course about preception escapes me.
--fred
PS: And the scenario is quite stupid too. If Neo had more than room temperature IQ, he would questionate the reality of Morpheus too. Total Recall is better in this point of view (ie: At least, the onirism of the ending scenes make me beleive that Douglas Quaid should have took the pill Dr. Edgemar proposed).
Well if its being run from a computer that system has one hell of an uptime as I can't recall a crash from any point in my lifetime. Definantly not a Microsoft Based Reality it seems. So it looks like it was open source robots who took over the real world and plugged us all in as human batteries...
Well, I tried Keanu trick of running up a wall during a Kung-Fu fight, and I fell and hurt myself. And Tank nevers answers when I ask him to run the Apache-AH64 training programme...
T.
Such certainty, such certainty. One of the things you learn from Philosophy (Western analytical Philosphy, anyway) is that all the cool sci-fi paradoxes and ideas that got you interested in the subject when you were 17 are MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN THEY LOOK.
Do a google search for 'putnam brains in vats' or somesuch and check out some of the papers people have written. One is below:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/evil90.htm
-----
There is a very in-depth analysis of The Matrix as it relates to Christianity at http://awesomehouse.com/matrix/parable. html. It discusses the symbolism of character names, places, events, etc with direct links to the Scriptures. Of course, some people will claim that this is coincidence by the Wachowski brothers, but some of the Christian parallels were confirmed in an interview with them and also in an interview with Joe Pantoliano (Cypher) at http://www.anothe runiverse.com/movies/features/joepantoliano.html.
This is a question from my PHIL101 final exam back in 1988.
Each TA wrote one question. This one came from mine. I
spent half the final exam period working on the final, and
the other half memorizing this very question. I'm firmly
convinced that at least one of the Wachowski brothers was
in my class, and said, "We should make a movie about that."
I've included footnotes for references that are now dated.
Question 2
----------
part a: Explain ____'s definition of reality as "true knowledge"
part b: Explain whether either of the individuals in the
following situation have true knowledge as directed.
Bill and Ted hop on their interplanetary space Harleys and
head off to the planet Pluto. When they arrive, they see
some lights in the distance, and investigate. Upon closer
inspection, they see what appears to be an exact replica of
the Campus Village shopping center (1). Bill and Ted decide
to pick up a local copy of the National Inquirer, but when
they get into People's (2), they are abducted by a bunch of
Telly Savalas (3) look alikes, who take them to what appears
to be the game show set for Let's Make A Deal (4). Ted has
all of his sensory organs disconnect from his body and put
in a box. Bill is told that they will reconnect them if he
can guess which curtain Ted's sensory organs are hiding
behind. While Bill is thinking about his choice, someone
brushes past curtain #2, revealing what appear to be Ted's
sensory organs in a box. In truth, it's a hologram. The
organs are actually in a smaller box, behind the hologram.
Does Bill have True Knowledge as to the whereabouts of Ted's
sensory organs?
Ted's brain is electrically stimulated to make him believe
that he's on the game show, Let's Make A Deal, and that
his sensory organs will be reconnected if Bill guesses what
curtain they are hiding behind. Does Ted have True Knowledge
as to his whereabouts?
(1) a shopping center just off the UMCP campus.
(2) a drug store chain, now CVS Pharmacy.
(3) Kojak, a bald police detective(?) from a popular '70s show.
(4) Another popular '70s show, "would you like to trade all
that you have now for what's behind curtain #2."
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
No, the philosophers die because they try to pick up the forks on both sides of them to eat spaghetti, and thus deadlock.
in my experience, most people do not wish to challenge the modes of thought that they have unthinkingly used all their lives.
Which is why, in the modern age of accelerating change, they're dinosaurs. I'm not sure if Philosophy is as important as studying Philosophy, because the act of considering alternate viewpoints as legitimate competitors to your own provides the flexibility needed to cope with change. Knowing the people and language of the Philosophy discipline is important if you wish to spread yours or have people understand it, but honestly life is getting so individually-tailored that soon (if not now) it will be futile to try and categorize philosophies.
Of course, discrimination is also important: reflexive flexibility is extremely dangerous, you should definitely develop good filters..
Your Working Boy,
By far his best book, imho, is Fiasco.
I dunno, my favorite has to be The Cyberiad.. I particularly like the story of the 2 warring nations whose princes had Trurl and Klaupaucius build conduits into their armies' heads, to connect them together and allow for exact maneuvers. IIRC it was Sally 7, but it's been awhile..
Your Working Boy,
If this doesn't get moderated up as Funny, /. really has lost its consituency.
Go get your copy of Abelson and Sussman's Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs from the shelf. Find the chapter on streams. 'Nuff said.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
This is not new, either in philosophy or in the movies. (My favorite movie example, btw, is Dark Star , in which a disgruntled crewman has to argue phenomenology with an intelligent thermonuclear weapon.)
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Chuck Heston is a *fine* actor. Apart from his role in Ben Hur (awesome) and The Ten Commandments (also totally awesome) I saw him some years ago at the Queen's Theatre in London, playing Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny. He was superb. That man has such charisma and, well, presence.
It's just a pity he's such a rabid gun nut.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You can't learn philosophy from a movie; to pass the exam you need to be able to quote, dissect and compare the writings of the recognised big names. The Wachowski brothers just don't count in that regard.
However, watching The Matrix *does* provide a concrete example of some epistemiological questions. It would provide a means of grasping the basic concepts and a basis for discussion in future lectures, if nothing else.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
JULIET:
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet
NEO:
Woah!
JULIET:
Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
Neo:
Dude!
etc...
The tweak in the Oracle scene for me was the vase sequence. Would Neo have broken it had his attention not been brought to it by the Oracle?
Sort of parallels with Heisenberg as applied to psychology. Once you are made aware of something, you can't help but pay attention to it. It's like someone saying "Don't look at that guys nose"...
There's a whole fate/predeterminism vs free-will discussion in there as well... And it feeds well into the whole issue of Neo becoming The One by choosing to 'walk the path' in addition to being 'destined' to be The One through 'knowing the path'.
Interesting that once Neo decided to give up on his destiny, and sacrifice himself to save Morpheus (reasoning that Morpheus could do more good for mankind than Neo himself), he actually fulfilled his destiny. He chose to go against it and thereby brought it to fruition.
The Oracle scene holds enough meat for a couple of philosophy courses, and probably a psych class while at it.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
actually this kind of a theory has theological merrit, there is a simmilar traditional theory called "Process Theodicy" (i forget who the authors are)
my adaptation of process theodicy is that "god" is simply an innate force in the universe to perpetuate self-organizing systems that oppose entropy, thereby extending the life of "god"/the universe... you see (s)he's just doing what (s)he can to stay alive!
therefore if you accept this theodicy god is in all things, as well as transcending them... very simmilar to the popular christian theodicy of the "holy spirit"...
it's more of a rational moderate approach that I think most people could accept...
there's a lot further that you can go with this sort of a theory... heck if I was going for an MA in phillosophy rather than an MS in CS it would probably be my thesis...
(p.s. follow my URL for other theological ideas surrounding this one)
But then again, you think rain is wet....
there is no there.
1) A computer can 'understand' it as much as a human.
2) Who says the universe is infinite? We could be living on a hyper-sphere.
Of course we all know Keanu Reeves was just lucky enough to have the superb support of Fishburne. Neo could have been played by any number of actors without any detraction; Fishburne is Morpheus, and gave the film every ounce of soul it enjoys today.
;-)
Good. I'm not the only one who feels this way. =) Reeves was good as Neo, I wouldn't argue that. Calling it his movie is off the mark, IMO. Sure, Neo is the central figure as "the one". I can imagine several different actors who could have played this role, and yes - it would still have been the same movie.
Not the same for Fishburne... I agree completely - wouldn't have been the same movie with anyone else.
P.S. Remember when Fishburne was on Pee Wee Herman's playhouse as one of the characters? What was his name? I want to say "Coyboy Carl" but I'm not sure. God its funny to go back and see other stuff our favorite actors have done when they were small-time.
...since I almost put in a disclaimer about how I don't want to lump logic in with the rest of it. Now I wish I did.
However, aside from logic, philosophy (as it is studied in courses bearing that name) is about nothing but unanswerable questions (unfortunately ones to which people often have to choose arbitrary answers to go on with their lives).
Neo wakes up, goes to work; everything is normal.
(or is that too "Outer Limits"?)
I heard the oracle scene was edited and a lot of it cut out. The edited parts made the cookie and the whole scene more understandable. With the edits, the cookie didn't really mean anything.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Reality is a very interesting and confusing entity. For instance if I ask you "Are you sure what you see is actually what exists", what would you answer be ? "Yes" - Well how can you be sure, when you donno what is reality.
The Matrix brings out that confusing aspect of reality, among other things. Oh ya.. as the article mentioned, the secod half was mundane comapred to the amount of brain work was needed to 'understand' the first half. A small indicator would be the number of times I had to watch the first half and not the second half to make some sense out of the movie!
... "follow me" the wise man said, but he walked behind
Can a computer program ever possibly be self aware?
:)
I do not know how to do it, but I suspect it will happen, but it more fun to think about self aware memes or thoughs within a computer/human..
Can a computer program, if it is aware, believe something that's not true?
I do not see why not since most humans bvelieve in a god (or reinterpret this as most humans do not believe in your god if you are religious), but it is much more fun to think about designing computers (or humans through genetic and psycological engenring) to figure out specific problems (like open math problems). If you think technologies moves fast now, you should see how fast it moves when you can build people to solve specific problems.
Actually, I am of the opinion that building people to answer specific problems in the "ultimate in open source" (sorry for the wording, but this is the most efficent wast to communicate ythe idea to a slashdot audience) because when Joe creates Bob to solve a problem no one should own the solution, i.e. Joe's ownership == slavery and Bob's ownership == Joe had no reason to make Bob.
Is there such a thing as Free Will?
I can not answer your question because it involves inherently vague terms (free will), but I can say we are very complex mechines (this can be interpreted to mean yes or no depending on what youwant to call free will). Regardless, the connction of us with machines is the importent philosophical point.
What if our entire universe is actually a subatomic particle in another universe?
It dose not matter if it can not effect you in any way (note: things like the big bang and the end of the universe do effect you). There are much cooler questions which are more down to earth.. like stuff from quantum mechanics.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
When are they teaching "Dumb and Dumber" as a course?
"Today, class, we're going to discuss the Austrian influence on the start of the First World War."
"G'Day, Mate! Let's throw another shrimp on the 'barby!"
Pop philosophy is almost as deadly as pop medicine/religion/etc and is always Lame. It's Ironic that in modern philosophy there are few enough heros that it needs to borrow from the cinema. At best, they might want to use the movie to teach mythology, or maybe even modern Jungian archetypes but that would be psycology. To use it to teach philosophy is grasping at straws for whatever will get students in. Desparate. Another indication of modern ed. being more about entertainment than knowledge and that is Sad. Save the movie analysis for the pub try to teach without props.
Good philosophy is essential.
Firstly in my experience most people don't think those thoughts, just the smarter reflective ones.
Secondly the questions aren't the issue. It's the answers, and espesially the methods to find the answers that are important.
Philosophy is not about catergorizing difficult questions, it's about solving them. If you think philosopy is just a mechanism for efficiently expressing supposedly profound thoughts then you have missed the core of philosophy.
Unfortunately meny philosophers have also missed the core of philosophy.
The questions are uncertain. Philosophy is about solving those problems by providing arguments to suggest answers.
Philosophy is reasoning. It should be taught at an early age because people need to reason.
Many people believe that if A then B means disproving A also disproves B. I've come across it many times.
Look at an abortion clinic protest. You get pro choice and pro life people chanting slogans at each other. Most of them seem to have only a slight understanding of the real moral issues. Philosophy would give them the chance to analyze their own and their adversaries' arguments.
If the reasoning tools of philosiphy were taught at an early age (most aren't difficult, how to spot and avoid fallacies would be a good start) then they can use them in their day to day lives.
Just imagine how the average persons live would be different if they could spot fallacies reasonably well. Reading the newspaper would be an entirely different experience for them.
Now, just imagine how _OUR_ lives would be better if the average journalist knew how to spot a fallacy an also knew that their readership could as well.
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
As anyone who has used their own brain to any degree and developed a thirst for knowledge could attest, the ideas enumerated in the film are not original and not elaborated upon to do them justice. However, there is a generation of tv-babies that have been spoonfed a manipulated sense of reality to whom this movie might initiate a desire to learn more. Opening their eyes to other possibilities. Books don't neccesarily appeal to those who like their thinking to be done for them. Target these potential students in the course description or a flyer campaign, but don't discredit the name of Philosophy & the great thinkers throughout existence by linking (limiting) it to a hollywood creation (no matter how un-conventional it might have been in that it presupposed a certain amount of intellect to enjoy on a higher level).
There are better ways to manipulate enrollment that don't have such recursive effects on mentality and credibility to actual open-mindedness. What next? A Jerry Springer Social Behavior course? Big Daddy Single Parenting? ER Medical School?
them's my thoughts....
At any rate, Matrix is a very nice movie, but as far as stimulating the intellect? Come on. Humans as biological batteries? Please. "Grow large amounts of algae. Burn it.". I mean, how silly can you get?
They could have come up with dozens of more plausible and more interesting scenarios: for example, the AIs are not strong on creativity, and are maintaining all the charade just for the few human geniuses who contribute new science, new art, etc. - that would make an interesting twist in things, and could serve as a basis for wonderful plot lines.
Or, why just one level of reality? The whole humans-as-batteries is so absurd you just have to believe it is also simulated and that there's a level below. "It is turtles all the way down".
OK, expecting an intelligent script from Hollywood is like expecting generosity from a bank. But a University? If it had some sense, they'd pick on the writings of Phillip K. Dick instead. "Ubik" comes to mind as an excellent example.
What is wrong with me that I get so nauseated
when I see someone explaining exceedingly simple and obvious aspects of philosphy as if their thoughts were profound?
I really enjoyed The Matrix, but I was really annoyed when I overheard everyone talking about how deep it was outside of the theatre.
This is the same feeling I get when I see people using the word 'one'.
When one is using the word one to describe oneself then one perhaps has seen one too many movies?
It's elitism I know, I just can't seem to shake it.
blah.
Sigs are awesome huh?
Is it just me or was that ending when Keanu did the very cheap, Superman-esque launch toward the screen just ruin a pretty good movie. How the hell did that get in there ?
Well it does help explain some concepts I guess...
(It sure helped explain "MAGE: THE ASCENSION" to
a couple of newbie players)
However when I talk to a friend of mine (who
has an university degree in Philosophy) he says
the most the most important aspect of philosophy
is imagination and carefull pondering.
If you need a movie to understand some concepts,
it might be a good idea NOT to study philosophy...
(of course the article says the film is used
as introduction material which is definetlt
a good idea. I wished more teachers would be
so open-minded)
J.
Anyone who's done computer science should recognise what the oracle is. A (Turing) oracle is any computing device that can calculate uncomputable functions. If you remember your CS the first uncomputable function you come across comes from the halting problem and involves feeding a program to itself and making it deliberately `contrary' (I'm not giving the details because it's in many textbooks). The whole oracle scene in the movie should strike you as similar. The relation of `know thyself' to a Turing oracle is obvious but consider also the incident with a vase. Given that the Wachowskis cite "Godel, Escher, Bach" as a major influence and this book discusses computability I'd say that this use of the term oracle is quite deliberate.
-- SIGFPE
Disclaimer: I've seen the Matrix once. I thought it was a comedy. What philosophy there was in it was, IMO, either blatantly misrepresented (the Agent's statements on evolution) or laughably simplistic versions of stuff that has been hashed through a great deal. Which brings me to PKD. While it is arguable that the Matrix pulled much from William Gibson it's whole premise is one that PKD would have recognised from his whole writing career. PKD obsessively wrote about what is real and what is not and the ambiguity therein. Which is probably why the Matrix did little for me. There is very little ambiguity in the movie. Very early on it is clear what the two worlds are and what the characters roles are in them. After that its just a matter of how many shell casings will fall in slow motion until the bad guys bite it. If you want some ambiguity in a VR plotted movie, check out the Thirteenth Floor. Almost zero special effects, very little violence, no music video moments, but a lot of story, character and thought.
I just wanted to say that I found the Matrix totally realistic technologically, and I like to think of myself as highly realism-oriented I walked out of Raiders of the Lost Ark and didn't think putting a deLorean in Back to the Future was funny in any way. Here's how I rationalize The Matrix: IMHO, martial arts are mystical hocus pocus, martial arts in movies are insipid and martial arts video games really really really pointless. However, I also realize that many people disagree with me. So, if all the programmers that like Mortal Kombat were to work on coding the matrix, it would be exactly like that matrix in The Matrix, wouldn't it?
As to the philosophy, cool in the movie because it was presented as someone else's idea of what if, like acting out a scenario "what if I was John Malkovich?", but not much there to take away... how do I know I'm not dreaming that I'm in the movies?
Oh, I forgot, the whole bit about the humans being kept around as little power sources was unscientific.
what the heck have I done... :)
huh? properly used, sic should be in square brackets (italicized because it is a foreign word?), and used when you suspect an error but wish to pass the buck. "fillum" should probably be categorized as dialect and wouldn't be sicced, otherwise Huckleberry Finn would be unreadable. In addition, I personally don't think it should be used as a "nyah-nyah tag" but as a "look, I'm quoting this because it's important, so I don't want to alter the meaning, but it seems a little broken for reasons I don't know."
Here's my interpretation. The big-ass computer controlls what everyone perceives via the direct wire into the brain. Neo, along with some other people in The Oracle's house, has such a strong mind that he is able to override what the computer is inputting into him, thus changing the reality for himself. When Morpheus is explaining The Matrix to Neo, he mentions that "A body cannot exist without a mind. If your mind is killed in the Matrix, your body dies, too" (paraphrasing). The idea being that if you have the power to manipulate the perceptions being fed to you, you can, say, dodge two dozen bullets at supersonic speed. :)
You could start with some of Philip K. Dicks essays on the nature of reality (particularly around his VALIS idea) and talk about the ideas in philosophy and religion to which they connect.
Dick could lead you into science fiction, cyberpunk, and national anxiety about control.
Bring in other films like Existenz and talk about self-reference in video games like Nomad Soul.
Heck, Id take the class.
Because the snark was a...
Shouldn't the Matrix be used for a calculus class instead?
Bill & Ted's Excellent adventure and associated Time Travel Paradoxes to your advanced Physics class.
That piece made sense to me (much was fluffy, for the purposes of entertainment).. It wasn't about psychic power, it was about interfacing with the computer.
/. had a story on a DOOM interface to process management. When you wanted to kill -9 a process, you'd actually gun it down. Sort of intuitive. The Matrix was the perfect UI, completely abstracted to reality, and then flipped around that the machine ran the people - not really, but that's another topic.
:)
Every person was a ksh shell. Instead of a text interface, the API was sensory. (make a leap of faith, it's sci-fi) All running in standard user mode. The machine was in charge and could renice everyone as the automated routines and daemons (agents) saw fit. Neo had the potential to su -root on the system. Well, actually more than that, he had the ability to adjust the hidden/local variables of the OS.
A person can always out think a video game AI. Always. The advantage that video games have is speed, not intelligence. Eventually the human is simply out-gunned, and can't react fast enough.
Well, Neo could, not because he was faster than the machine, but because he could tweak the delay parameters at runtime.
What we saw on the screen was for entertainment purposes, but also (to me at least) presented an interesting concept. The ultimate user interface is one which you are not even aware of. It's totally natural, and totally transparent. It's 'real world', where your actions are ideal metaphors for what you want to do.
You may recall a few weeks ago
I perticularly liked the idea of 'looking at the actual code' rather than it's rendering. It's the best way to debug.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Philosophy classes are not simply about labels, and while many people do grasp some of the basic questions that philosophy is concerned with, very few know how to pick apart those questions in a rigorous way. You'd be right that "no one needs to be taught philosophy" if not for one simple factor: many logically true things are completely counter-intuitive. They defy common sense hunches, but are nevertheless true. That's why its very important to think things through very carefuly, and develop models and such. That's what real philosophy is all about. And maybe the answers wont even be much different- but at least you can expalin how you got there. I don't think much thought went into the philosophy of the Matrix either- my main problem is that it suffers from the "Superman effect." I.E.- people are said to have certain powers, but they forget to use them at convienient plot moments. Like when superman can run almost as fast as the flash, and can dodge bullets, but is then too slow to dodge having a chunk of concrete tossed at him. Likewise, we SEE that Neo, Geo, and Trinity can all move really really really fast, and even jump long distances. But when they're running from the agents- they move at normal speed. Hello? Add that to the fact that all the kunfu was extremely slow (at least by Jackie Chan standards!) and you got characters with super powers that don't make any sense.
I think it makes sense to include "The Matrix" in a philosophy course. It's basic theme is very similar to Descartes "evil genius" concept, which is tied in with the thought argument that conclues with "I think, therefore I am".
The "evil genius" idea, or as I learned about it in a philosophy class as the "brain in a vat" idea, is that it's hard to tell whether what you experience is reality, or whether it is the result of impulses being fed into your brain somehow.
Both Descartes writings and "The Matrix" make you consider philosophical questions like:
-- Can I trust my senses about what reality is?
-- If I can't be sure what reality is, what things can I be sure of? Do I exist? Am I the way I think I am? Are people the way I think they are?
-- How much does it matter? If I knew for sure that I was a brain in a vat dreaming these things, would I live my life differently?
Cara Hart chart@eNOSPAMfurn.com Systems Administrator eFurn.com, LLC. and ARITEK Systems, Inc.
1) I only know that I am a real human bean, if I know for certain that I am not being decieved into thinking that I am.
2) I cannot know for certain that I am not being decieved.
3) Therefore I cannot know whether or not I am real human bean.
Check out philosophy texts for "externalism", "Descartes' Demon" and "closure of knowledge under entailment" and you'll probably find a more rigorous discussion of this.
Kinda, but not really. The Matrix creates a reality for everyone. There is no actual reality at all, i.e., there is no one universal Matrix, just the inputs being fed into everyone's head. IF Neo dodges a bunch of bullets due to his abnormal powers, and doesn't die, then the Matrix is forced to accept that he dodged them, because otherwise he would be dead. Thus, by manipulating his own spoon-fed "reality," he is propogating his changes to other members of the reality...kinda like Usenet. :)
Nobody needs to be taught about philosophy. By roughly age 12, just about everybody has already had most if not all the "great thoughts": "I think therefore I am (but how do I really know anything else 'is'?)", "why would it be evil to send people to eternal bliss, but good to send people to eternal damnation?", "does a consciousness exist after death?", "do I really exercise free will, or just experience intention as I experience a sight or a smell?", "if I'm going to die anyway, why bother living even another day?", et cetera, ad nauseum.
Philosophy classes are about labels. They're about communicating meaningfully about these questions which every mind produces. How efficient to just say "solipsism" and express the great uncertainty of whether anything exists outside of your own mind!
The Matrix doesn't contain any of those labels, and really doesn't cover many ideas. Let's face it, it doesn't even make sense. What, was he supposed to have had some sort of psychic power over the computer? He wasn't hacking into the system in any way we'd recognize; the fact that the world was computer simulated in no way explained Neo's ability to break the rules at will. It has about as much philosophical value as Star Wars' mystical babble about the force: the purpose is not to inspire deep thought, but to produce a momentary awe to enhance the entertainment through deeper emotional involvement, and promote the suspension of disbelief in a representation of the eternal struggle of good against evil as primitive hand-to-hand combat (no really, this isn't pro-wrestling! they have strange psychic powers that will determine the fate of the universe!).
Of course, every once in while, exceptional pop culture can provide us with deep philosophical insights. ^_^
In all seriousness, you could cover all this stuff with dozens of different popular movies and such, but just singling one out for the focus of an entire course is silly.
Evidently The Matrix is strongly influenced by the philosophy of Socrates (at least as far as Plato tells us about it). The bit about the Oracle just makes it a tad too obvious: the wise saying ``know yourself'' (``GNOTHI SEAUTON'' in Greek — now I wonder why the makers of the movie decided to translate it in Latin: ``NOSCA TEMET'') was carved in front of the real Oracle, in Delphi, and Socrates adopted it as his motto. (Socrates, it seems, went to see the Oracle in Delphi and thus discovered about his own wisdom: ``the only thing I know is that I know nothing'' (``en oida ho ti ouden oida'').)
The whole film reeks of the parable of the cavern, told by Socrates in Plato's Republic. Recall that it goes something like this: some men are prisoners in a cavern, and are bound so that all they can see is a wall in front of them, and the shadows on that wall made by objects moving behind them. The prisoners think that the shadows are the real objects and give names to them. But one day a prisonner is unchained and goes out of the cavern. At first he is blinded by the sun, but after some time he gets accustomed to Reality. He goes back to the cavern and tries to convince his fellow prisoners that what they see are only shadows of the real objects. And so on. (If you want the full story, read The Republic.)
Now Plato has a very elitist vision of mankind. He was strongly opposed to democracy (two of his uncles were part of the Thirty Tyrants, the antidemocratic regime imposed upon Athens when it lost the Peloponnesian war against Sparta). The whole idea of The Republic, if I dare summarize it in just a few words, is that philosophers (those who can see further than the shadows of the parable's cavern) should be in charge of ruling the (city-)state. I think (I hope) that The Matrix has a more democratic vision of things, that the idea is to free mankind — all of mankind, not just a select happy few.
Another intersting point which is made, albeit briefly, in The Matrix, is when whatshisname discusses about the taste of things, how they might taste in reality, and how they taste in the Matrix: of course, the cavern's shadow-world is a projection of reality, but it is only a projection, and there is nothing to say that the reality is not vastly different from the projection (or vice versa).
I don't think this comparison is all that important, but it certainly fun to think how a science-fiction film of the end of the XXth century could have been greatly influenced by the writings of a philosopher nearly 25 centuries earlier.
(PS: Here in France we have philosophy courses in high school. I think that is a good idea.)
After seeing The Matrix I went and saw another somewhat cool movie, The Thirteenth Floor. For those of you who don't know - it's about scientists who invent a directly neural-linked VR system. What one of the scientists doesn't realize is that he is merely a character in someone else's giant VR world. To me, this raises some other interesting philosophical questions.
And, tying in with some of the stuff from The Matrix
Well, the last one doesn't have much to do with either film, but I've always wondered about that since I was very, very little.
Philosophy is the science of asking everything and answering nothing. - Me
It seems to me that people becoming more and more enraptured by the film, The Matrix, tend to forget or ignore what William Gibson's been writing about for more than twenty odd years. The father of cyberpunk laid out the very concept the Wachowski's use in their movie. Heck if i'm not mistaken, he even called it The Matrix way back in Neuromancer. Admittedly Johnny Mnemonic (another Keanu Reeves flick) was not exactly the best adaptation of his book; The Matrix as a virtual reality environment embedded into the everyday reality of our lives is a concept Gibson's been writing about for ages. (And his writings are included in several college curriculums throughout N.America)
I am glad the Wachowski's created the film and in it's own "kickass" manner did a fair job of it too. Yet it peeves me that nowhere, and nohow did noone mention Gibson, even as a passing reference!
While The Matrix has some interesting philosophical ideas, there are a whole bunch of other novels and movies that examine the same ideas, and more effectively IMHO. I would suspect that a large number of them are on the reading list for the course.
However, I've got to give the lecturer A for initiative - I hope he gets a good student or two out of it.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It's really too bad that the Wachowski brothers can't make a fillum (sic) as good as The Matrix, but about Calculus. I could have really used that back in College.
Imagine the same noir scenery. A lone function f(x) is just a mundane polynomial, but if you look in the table of contents, you know it's destined to perform derivatives, integrations (by parts when necessary), and even Fournier analysis.
f(x): When I am ready, will I be able to perform Reimann summation?
g(x): When you are ready, you won't have to...
Wow...
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
He then proceeded to leave the entire lecture theatre of students, mouths wide open, a minute and a half after coming in.
Half of us went striaght over to the cinemas and saw The Matrix!
Disclaimer 2: this stuff may seem obvious to people who have watched The Matrix more than once or twice. Sorry if I'm boring you :)
The scene where Neo is taken to the Oracle is quite interesting. I think it could cover a large portion of philosophy course. After seeing the movie a couple times, this scene really interested me.
Why? Well, as the movie progresses past that scene, it seems at first glance that the Oracle lied to Neo. Yeah everyone says "duh" he's the hero - of course he's The One. Morpheus later tells Neo "she told you exactly what you needed to hear", implying that the Oracle would lie if it lead Neo down the correct path.
But, at least in my interpretation, everything the Oracle told Neo was the truth. Morpheus himself did not completely understand the Oracle - he was in disbelief when he saw Neo die.
The Oracle however, knew this was one path that could happen. She told Neo that he would have to make a choice and that he or Morpheus WOULD die. She also told him that he's not The One. I think that he wasn't The One at that time. Notice how she also says "seems like you're waiting for something - maybe the next life - who knows?". Neo did die (flatlined), and then regained his life. At that point he had become The One. He didn't need to dodge bullets (as Morpheus had mentioned at the end of the agent training simulation).
And of course there are some religious parallels but I won't go there on this forum.
All in all, the Oracle scene was very well done, and linked in beautifully with the rest of the movie IMO.
Best regards,
SEAL