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."
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